'■•'.'•.■'ishsr 



5r^ ^. 



j^ef: j^^ . j^ ^^^ /m- 



^/S^// ^ 



! ^/„/. 'BA/si] 

I .^/.e// K.^....rj..T. ■■ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 







.^^_x^ 







AN APPEAL 

TO THE 
CANDID OF ALL DEXO^IINATIONS : 

IN WHICH THE 

OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE OF 
' BAPTISM 

ARE discussed/ 

BY REV. HENRY ^SLICER, 

IN ANSWER TO THE 

REV. W. F. BROADDUS, OF VIRGINIA, AND OTHERS. 

WITH 

A FURTHER APPEAL, 

IN ANSWER TO 

MR. BROADDUS'S LETTERS. 



/ \ THIRD EDITION, 

REVISED BY THE EDITOR. 



I speak as unto wise men ; judge ye what I saj-. — 1 Cor. x, 15. 
Hearken to me ; I also will show mine ophiion. — Job xxxii, 10. 



NEW-YORK : 



PUBLISHED BY GEORGE LANE, 

For the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference Office, 
200 Mulberry-street. 

— ^ 

J. Collord, Printer. 
1841. 



.^ig\\^ 



^ 



4!^ ^i 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, 
by George Lane, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
of the Southern District of New-York. 




OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE 

OF 

BAPTISM. 

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

When an individual presents himself in the 
character of a controversial writer, a proper 
respect for public opinion requires that he state 
the reasons which have induced him to take 
such an attitude. 

The following pages have not been called 
forth by a fondness for writing, — nor from the 
want of other important matters with which to 
occupy the writer's time, — but by the solicita- 
tions of friends ; and by what he at least con- 
siders an imperious call of duty, in view of the 
responsible relation which he sustains to the 
people of the Potomac district. 

There are times when silence may become 
treason; and error, xmexposed, may be passed 
off for valid truth. 

Until lately, I have had no intention to write 
on the subject of Christian baptism ; and even 
now I should not have written — so numerous 



4 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

and pressing are my engagements — could I 
have persuaded myself that the circulation of 
any one of the excellent tracts that have been 
"written by others would have met our peculiar 
circumstances in relation to this subject. 

With a district two hundred miles in length ; 
containing six or seven thousand church mem- 
bers : with fifty-two large meetings to attend 
in about forty-eight weeks, and a travel of 
about two thousand five hundred miles to per- 
form in the same time : I considered that I had 
no time to devote to writing on this subject, 
without oppressing myself, or neglecting mat- 
ters having a prior claim upon me, and possess- 
ing a paramount importance. The former I have 
done, in view of the necessity laid upon me, in 
order to avoid the latter. At different times and 
in several places, at the instance of my friends, 
I have been led to make remarks on the obliga- 
tion, mode, and subjects of baptism ; and Lave 
administered the ordinance to hundreds of adults 
of all ages, from the sire of seventy, down to 
the youth ; as well as to infants. With the 
Baptists, as a people, Ave have had no quarrel, 
and for many of them we have had, and do still 
entertain, rnorc than mere respect; and if our 
views, as expressed in the following pages, 
should be thought to be expressed in language 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 5 

too severe, we have only to say, that where we 
have seemed in the least caustic, it was because 
we considered the case required it. I 

We have no interests that we have not laid 
at the feet of truth ; and none that we are not 
willing to peril in its defence. And we wish 
it distinctly understood, that we take the whole 
responsibility of the views herein expressed. 

We have not sought to make proselytes to a 
party; nor have we even interfered with any 
who have been awakened at Baptist meetings ; 
we have acted soleiy on the defensive, in order 
to save our people from perplexity, and prevent 
others from " bereaving us of our children." ^ 

Some eighteen months ago, I found a pam- 
phlet circulating in the community, written by 
Elder W. F. Broaddus, entitled, " Strictures on 
Mr. Dieffenbacher's doctrine of water baptism, 
infant baptism," &c. 

I read it, and found a good deal of ridicule 
and sophistry employed against those who hold 
infant baptism, and baptism by sprinkling or 
pouring. I took no public notice of it, until the 
tenth day of last November, when at Upper- 
ville, Va., by request, I delivered an argument 
on baptism, in which I replied to all the matter 
contained in the strictures which I thought en- 
titled to notice ; but, lest any offence should be 



6 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

taken, I purposely avoided the mention of Mr. 
B.'s name. 

After I had administered the ordinance to 
twenty-three adults and some infants, as I pre- 
ferred to discuss the subject publicly, I made a 
general offer to debate the matter with any gen- 
tleman, minister or layman, within the bounds 
of my district, at any time and place which 
might be appointed for that purpose. A Bap- 
tist minister present declined the offer publicly, 
in the presence of about one thousand persons. 
Mr. Broaddus knew of what had passed, but did 
not see proper to accept the offer. 

He, however, preached a sermon on the same 
subject in the same village about three weeks 
afterward, which sermon he published after the 
lapse of about four or five months. I accident- 
ally heard of his intention to preach, two days 
before the time, and that a rumour, or report, 
Avas in circulation through the neighbourhood 
by his friends, that I was expected to be present 
on the occasion. I \vrote immediately to Up- 
perville, informing my friends that I had re- 
ceived no notice of the appointment from Mr. 
B., and in the letter renewed the offer to de- 
bate the matter, which letter was handed him, 
by a friend of mine, before he preached. 

About three days after he o . ered that ser- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 7 

mon, I received a letter from him, requesting 
me to publish my sermon, and very kindly 
offering to review it, in case I should publish ; 
and offered as an inducement to me, the follow- 
ing language : " Controversies, v^hen properly 
conducted, must alv^ays do good." 

I took no notice of the letter, because I con- 
sidered it a fair decline of my offer ; and be- 
cause I have always believed that the subject 
could be brought home to those who are least 
informed on the subject, (and of consequence 
most liable to be misled,) better by an oral than 
a written argument, and at less expense to the 
community. In his " Note to the reader," and 
in the commencement of his sermon, he has 
used my name, and informs the reader that his 
discourse was occasioned ^'hytJie excitement^^ 
which my sermon '^ produced in the village and 
neighbourhood,^^ and that I had made " an at" 
tempt to prove that infant sprinkling was an 
ordinance of the New Testament." 

The candid reader will be able to judge how 
far I have succeeded in the ^^ attempt J'^ in the 
following pages. I think it very likely that the 
ffty-nine adults baptized by pouring in that place 
and its vicinity, within the few weeks previous, 
gave that gentleman more uneasiness than the 
^^attempt^^ at proving "infant sprinkling." 



8 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

He takes for granted that he is rigid in his 
" understanding and practice" of the ordinance 
— and that / am wrong; and he sets out to 
" counteract the wrong impressions'^ that I may 
have made. This looks a little like begging 
the question. 

As Mr. B. was so kind as to offer to be re- 
viewer for me, and was so kind as to write 
" strictures" for Mr. D., I suppose he, least of 
all, will complain of my performing the like 
kind office for him; as one "good turn deserves 
another" — and I accept on his part the iciU for 
the deed. 

If he should think proper to write again, and 
should produce any arguments that I have not 
replied to in these pages, I shall answer him in 
some way. But I give the reader notice that 
/ shall not lorite again, to answer arguments, or 
sophistry, that I have already replied to. 

In the discussion 1 have (so far as I knew 
them) taken up all the arguments used hy the 
Baptists, and have not confined myself to Mr. 
B.'s " sermon" and " strictures" alone. 

While / am fully convinced that the Baptists, 
as a denomination, had their rise in Germany 
in 1521 or 1522, under Nicholas Stork, Munt- 
zer, John of Leyden, Knipperdoling, and others, 
I have forborne giving an account of them, as 



\ 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 9 

it is found in Robinson's Charles V., and in a 
View of All Religions, by Ross, published in 
London, 1664 ; as I know the matter to be very 
offensive to our Baptist friends ; also believing 
it to be unrighteous to attribute the " iniquities 
of the fathers to the children." Although Mr. 
B. has laboured hard to establish the charge of 
heresy against the founder of Methodism, in the 
matter of baptismal regeneration^ a doctrine which 
he must have known that wise and good man no 
more held than he believed that " Thomas Stork 
held communion with God, by means of an 
angel," yet / will not retaliate by recounting • 
the doctrines and practices of the German Ana- 
baptists. 

Here I take leave of this subject, praying that 
God may keep us from the by-ways of error, 
and lead us into the way of truth. 

HENRY SLICER. 
Alexandria, October 7, 1835. 



10 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

When the Appeal was first put to press, the 
author was not aware that the demand for the 
work would be more than to justify the issuing 
of a small edition ; accordingly, a thousand 
copies were issued, nearly all of which were 
disposed of in a few weeks, and another edition 
was demanded, with a request that it should be 
enlarged in one or two parts. 

The reception with which it met from the 
candid and intelligent of different denomina- 
tions, not excepting the Baptists, (for I never 
heard of its giving much offence to any one 
except Mr. B.,) and the assurances of its use- 
fulness which reached me from different parts 
of the country, convinced me of the propriety 
of revising and enlarging the work, and publish- 
ing a second edition. But as I wished to know 
what course Mr. Broaddus would take in the 
matter, it was judged best to defer the publica- 
tion of a future edition, until he should either 
reply, or decline any further controversy on the 
subject. After waiting some time for an answer, 
I learned, through a friend, that he would reply 
about Christmas ; I looked in vain to that period 
for an answer, for it passed, and also the long 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 11 

month of January, and the cold month of Feb- 
ruary, and the winds of March, and the showers 
of April, all passed, and no answ er came ; and 
in the month of June, while I was just about to 
conclude that Mr. B. had abandoned the idea 
of answering, a friend informed me that the 
reply was then in press. I then began to rea- 
son in my own mind, in order, if possible, to 
find out what could have detained the answer 
for seven long months, and upon reflection I 
recollected that the Upperville sermon, although 
delivered the sabbath before winter, was not 
issued from the press until the ice and snow of 
the cold season had all melted, and the singing 
of birds was heard in the land ; and what makes 
this the more remarkable is, the fact that his 
note to the reader is dated December, 1834 : — 
has this all been the result of accident? or does 
not Mr. Broaddus know that an argument for 
immersion stands but little chance of exerting 
a proselyting influence in mid-winter? But be 
this as it may, one would think that if "he 
found (as he says he did) that my bold asser- 
tions were likely to pass for sound argument 
with some, who lacked either capacity or lei- 
sure to examine for themselves ; while the se- 
rious imputations I had cast upon his motives 
were likely to awaken suspicions in a com- 



12 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

munity but little acquainted with him, unfavour- 
able to his reputation ;" surely he should have 
hastened to the rescue of his favourite theory 
from the hands of those " bold assertions," and 
from those " who lacked capacity or leisure to 
examine for themselves," and especially to have 
silenced all " suspicion unfavourable to his 
reputation ;" and more especially, " as he soon 
found that some of my readers were inclined to 
attribute his silence to a consciousness of guilt," 
page 59. And yet, strange to tell, this gentle- 
man defers his answer for seven months. Per- 
haps he thought that the impression that my 
^^hold assertions'^ made last fall, with regard to 
the ordinance, would, with the aid of a little 
time, become erased from the minds of the 
good people of Virginia, who were destitute of 
" capacity or leisure to examine for themselves" 
— and that he could repeat over the arguments, 
I will not say " bold assertions," of his stric- 
tures and sermon, and utter his complaints long 
and loud, about being " misquoted," " misrepre- 
sented," his " motives impugned," " personal 
defamation," &c., &c., and thus hide himself in 
the smoke of his own raising. And if he did 
not succeed in slaying " Goliath," he would at 
least show the community that, 

"Although vanquished, he can argue still.'* 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 13 

I promised the candid reader not to answer 
" arguments or sophistry that I had already re- 
plied to." I shall, in a Further Appeal, how- 
ever, take such notice of Mr. B.'s twenty-one 
letters as I may think them entitled to. 

I confess I expected when I wrote that Mr. 
B. would reply, for I knew that those who have 
vanity enough to compare themselves to the 
warrior David, page 42, would make a show of 
fight, although there might be, in reality, neither 
a sling in his hand, nor a " smooth stone left in 
the shepherd's hagf^ they w^ould fancy, too, that 
they heard the death-groan of the giant, and 
that they had given his head tothe host of 
Israel, and his carcass to the fowls of heaven — 
to the vultures, of course. 

But in all seriousness, (speaking without a 
figure,) I was surprised that the gentleman 
should show so much morbid sensibility, and 
that he should take up so much of his letters 
in attempts to excite the sympathy of the public 
for the much injured man. Could not the can- 
did reader judge whether my weapons were 
those of ^^ personal defamation'^ and ^' sarcasm^^ 
or those of Scriptural argument and sober rea- 
son? Did Mr. B. fear that the candid reader 
had not " capacity" to see that I was " almost 
a stranger to the use of all weapons, except 



14 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

sarcasm and personal defamation^'* that it became 
necessary, in his " note to the reader," to inform 
him of it ? I sought (as far as the nature of the 
case would admit) to use ^^ soft words'*"* and 
''hard arguments^ If, however, I had known 
that Mr. B. was " <2 man of extra- ' ordinary 
sensibility^^ I might have used " soft arguments''* 
and ''hard words^"* which might have been more 
acceptable to the gentleman on several accounts, 
for certainly the intelligent reader will see that 
Mr. B. is no novice in those at the present, and 
with a little more practice he might become an 
adept both in the use of " soft arguments''* and 
"hard words P 

But I will not rail, but leave the gentleman 
to digest his own spleen. 

I shall not promise to demonstrate any thing, 
either in regard to my own innocence or the 
goodness of my cause — I shall leave to the 
candid reader the task of making up a judg- 
ment for himself, both with regard to the sub- 
ject and the writer. It may have been as well 
for Mr. B. to put a promise in his " note to 
the reader" that he will demonstrate his " own 
innocence," and that my " views of baptism are 
altogether without foundation in the word of 
God" — as it is possible many of his readers 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 15 

may not be able to see the demonstration of 
either in the body of his work. 

Having carefully read Mr. B.'s letters, I am 
more than ever convinced that the viev^s of 
baptism held by our Baptist friends cannot be 
maintained. 
I All I ask of you, intelligent reader, is a can- 
did examination of. this revised and enlarged 
" Appeal," with the " Further Appeal," and I 
shall have no anxiety for the issue. " I speak 
as unto wise men — judge ye what I say." 

HENRY SLICER, 
Georgetowrif D. C, July^ 1836. 



OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE 



BAPTISM. 



In calling public attention to the subject of 
Christian baptism, we wish to declare plainly 
and fully our views, without intending to offend 
any; and not expecting to give offence to the 
liberal and candid, who, while they claim the 
right to think, and according to their best light 
entertain and express their opinions, accord to 
others cordially the same which they claim for 
themselves. 

In the arguments which we may adduce on. 
the subject, it is not our design so much to prove 
that others are not right, as to prove that we are 
not wrong. 

And if, when we have gone through the argu- 
ment, we shall have failed to convince you that 
ours is the " more excellent way," we shall not 
think you any the worse Christians, unless, in 
the spirit of bigotry, you should unchristian 
others who may not agree with you in their 
doctrines and usages. For we conceive that 
no Adews of doctrine, or of the ordinances, how- 
ever correct, can save any man, unless he be 
spiritually regenerated. For '^neither circum- 
2 



18 OBLIGATIO:^, SUBJECTS, AXD 

cision availeth any thing, nor imcirciimcision, 

but a new creature ^ 

Many who have been as orthodox as an 
apostle, and have received the rite of baptism, 
have proved themselves to be but " baptized 
infidels, washed to fouler stains." 

Having said thus much, we shall proceed to 
speak, i 

First, of the obligation and perpetuity — I 

Secondly, of the subjects — 

And thirdly, of the mode of baptism. 

THE OBLIGATION AND PERPETUITY OF CHRIS- 
TIAN BAPTISM. 

On this part of the subject we and our Baptist 
friends have no controversy — as we agree alike 
to assert and maintain the obligation of the 
ordinance. But there have been many, bearing 
the name of Christ, who look upon the subject 
with indifference, and others who argue against 
it, saying that it is a ^'carnal ordinance,'^ and 
ought long since to have become extinct in the 
church of Christ. And in support of their views 
they adduce several passages of Scripture, and 
maintain that the baptism of the Spirit super- 
sedes the necessity of water baptism. The 
views of such have grown, in part, out of the 
fact that our Baptist friends generally have 
confounded Christian baptis?n with the baptism 
of John, whereas the two should be considered 
entirely distinct, as we hope to be able to show 
hereafter. The two passages on which sucli 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 

as deny the obligation of baptism mainly rely 
are to be found, John iii, 30, '' He must in- 
crease, but I must decrease ;" and 1 Cor. i, 17, 
" For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the gospel." They conclude from the 
passage in John, that as he v/as to decrease as 
Christ increased, therefore baptism ought to 
have ceased in the church centuries since. 
The conclusion is good from the premises, but 
the premises are false, and the conclusion is 
therefore good for nothing ; for in the same 
chapter you will find John's disciples informing 
him that Christ was baptizing, and all men were 
flocldng to him ; and John said, " I am not the 
Christ.'^ " I came to bear witness of him." " lie 
must increase, I must decrease." Consequently 
we hear nothing of John's baptism after he was 
beheaded, only that St. Paul rebaptized some at 
Ephesus who had previously received John's 
baptism. See Acts xix, 1-7. John received a 
temporary commission to herald the approach 
of the Messiah and his kingdom ; and baptizing 
the people with the baptism of repentance, 
taught them to believe on him who w^as to 
come ; — i. e., on Christ Jesus. And so little 
were the disciples at Ephesus acquainted with 
Christianity in its doctrines or spirit, that they 
had not so much as heard whether there was 
any Holy Ghost. 

We request you to refer to the passage and 
read it attentively, as we shall have occasion to 
quote it again in the course of the argument. 
The view we have given of John's baptism we 



20 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

are happy to find supported by that able and 
distinguished minister of the Baptist Church, 
Robert Hall, of England. See his Works, vol. i, 
p. 372. His words are, " No rite celebrated 
during the ministry of John is entitled to a 
place among Christian sacraments." It is to be 
regretted, however, that most of his less intel- 
ligent brethren differ with Mr. Hall in opinion. 
Some of them have maintained from the pulpit, 
and others from the press, that John's was 
Christian baptism. On this point the Rev. Mr. 
Broaddus seems not, as yet, to have made up 
an opinion. See sermon, p. 34. 

The other passage (quoted from Corinthians) 
will be found, upon examination, not to weigh 
against the obligation of the ordinance. A fac- 
tion had arisen in the church at Corinth, the 
apostle was informed that they had raised par- 
ties, and had used his name, and the names of 
his friends Apollos and Cephas. He writes 
them a severe letter, remonstrating against their 
course, and asks, " Is Christ divided? Was Paul 
crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the 
name of Paul ? I thank God that / baptized 
none of you^ but Crispus and Gains." And 
why ? He immediately assigns the reason, " Lest 
any should say that I had baptized in mine own 
name." " For Christ sent me not to baptize," 
&c. ; i. e., my main and most important business 
is to preach the gospel. He did baptize some, 
as you learn from the context ; and it is certain 
that he baptized others, in other places, as the 
twelve disciples at Ephesus, &c. But as a 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 21 

wise master builder, he had learned to give to 
things severally the importance due to them. 

Having thus shown that these texts lie not 
against the obligation of the ordinance, we 
must remark, that as Christ gave a command 
to the apostles, after his resurrection, to dis- 
ciple all nations, by baptizing and teaching 
them ; with the promise to be with them to the 
end of the world ; and as that command has 
neither been revoked nor complied with to its 
full extent, the obligation still rests upon the 
ministry to administer the rite, and upon the 
nations to submit to it. And furthermore, when 
the apostles went forth in obedience to the 
above command, whenever and wherever the 
word took effect upon the hearers, and they 
were willing to receive Christ, the apostles 
dedicated them, if Jews, to Jesus, as the true 
Messiah, and, if Gentiles, to the true God — 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

On the day of Pentecost, when the three 
thousand cried out, " Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?" (although, in all probability, 
many of them had been baptized by John,) 
Peter said, '* Repent and be baptized, every one 
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost." 

And when Peter opened the kingdom of 
heaven to the Gentiles, in the house of Corne- 
lius, as he had done to the Jews on the day of 
Pentecost, while he was speaking, the Holy 
Ghost fell on the congregation. " Then an- 



22 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

swered Peter, Can any man forbid water ^ that 
these should not be baptized, which have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost, as well as we ? And he 
commanded them to be baptized in the name 
of the Lord," Acts x, 44-48. Will any one, in 
view of this evidence, still assert that water 
baptism is not obligatory? Those who main- 
tain that the baptism of the Spirit supersedes 
the necessity of the baptism of water differ in 
judgment with the apostle Peter. And you, 
my reader, can judge whose opinion is entitled 
to most deference ; the inspired apostles, who 
received the command at the mouth of Christ, 
or one, or many at this late period, who are not 
under the infallible inspiration of the Spirit; as 
is evident from the fact, that those who deny 
the obhgation of baptism disagree among them- 
selves upon the most important points in Chris- 
tian theology. 

It will be in vain to say that the ordinance 
has been abused, by having too much stress 
laid upon it ; for the abuse of a good thing is 
not a valid argument against its use. " I speak 
as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 

ON THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

We shall now present for your consideration 
and judgment our views in answer to the question, 
who are the proper subjects of the ordinance? 

Before I enter fully into this part of the sub- 
ject, I beg your serious and candid attention 
to two important preliminary considerations, 
namely, that as there is but one true God and 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 

one true faith, so this true God has never had 
more than one church in the world, from the 
day that pious Abel by faith offered an accept- 
able sacrifice, to the present hour. 1 am aware 
that this principle has been disputed, but I take 
ray firm stand upon the truth of God, and shall 
maintain this view, without fear of successful 
contradiction. In the sermon of Mr. B., p. 14, 
he says, " The truth is, there never was a visible 
church of Christ on earth, until he came and 
established it himself." There was a visible 
church of Christ before his coming as really as 
there has been since ; as is evident from Acts 
vii, 38, " This is he that was in the church in 
the WILDERNESS Avith the angel," — compared 
with Exodus xxiii, 20, 21, " Behold I send aa 
ANGEL before thee, &;c., provoke him not, for 
he will not pardon your transgressions," — com- 
pared with 1 Cor. X, 4 and 9, "And did all drink 
the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that 
spiritual rock that followed them ; and that rock 
was Christ." " Neither let us tempt Christ, 
as some of them also tempted, and were de- 
stroyed of serpents." It is clear from these 
passages, 1st, that God had a church in the 
wilderness ; 2dly, that the angel spoken of as 
having power to pardon sin was Christ ; 3dly, 
that he was with the church; 4thly, that him 
they tempted, and fell under his retributive ad- 
ministration. 

In all the scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments, the province of reading men's 
hearts is ascribed to God alone, and conse- 



24 OBLIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 

quently he alone can tell with infallible cer- 
tainty who are, and who are not, members of 
the invisible church of God. But, so far as 
man can judge from those actions which are 
an index to the hearts of men, we should con- 
clude that such as Zachariah and Elizabeth ^ 
Simeon and Anna, under the Jewish economy, 
were really members, constituting a visible 
church; especially as we have the testimony 
of God to their guileless and Scriptural piety. 
If Mr. B. means to say that no church is a 
visible church that has unworthy members in it, 
then, indeed, there never was a visible church 
of Christ on earth, even in the brightest period 
of the church's history. Was the church in the 
days of the apostles a visible church of Christ, 
any more than the Jewish church had been, 
when among the baptized were seen Judas, 
Demas, Simon Magus, and others ? But if Mr. 
B. means to say that the church of God and the 
church of Christ were tivo, then we ask how he 
can maintain such a view, without denying the 
unity of the Godhead, or the essential divinity 
of Christ ? There was .one church purchased 
by the blood of Christ : " Feed the church of 
God, which he (Christ, the true God) hath 
purchased with his own blood," Acts xx, 38. 
Which church was this ? I answer, The flock 
of God, embracing his people in every age, and 
under every dispensation. 

Hence Christ is called " a Lamb slain from 
the foundation of the world." See Rev. v, 6; 
xiii, 8. This church is sometimes called 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 

" a temple" or " building ;" then Christ is the 
" corner stone," " the foundation," Eph. ii, 20, 
and 1 Cor. iii, 11. And we learn from Isaiah, 
the prophet, who wrote seven hundred years 
before the opening of the gospel dispensation, 
that this " tried stone," this " precious corner 
stone," was laid in Zion for a foundation. Isaiah 
xxviii, 16. This is " the stone, elect, precious," 
on whom whosoever believed was not confound- 
ed. 1 Peter ii, 6. 

This church is again called " a ilock" or 
" sheepfold :" " He shall feed his flock like a 
shepherd, and carry the lambs in his bosom." 
In Jeremiah xxiii, 1-6, this flock is spoken of, 
and comforted with the promise of better days, 
under pastors that should care for them and 
feed them. This prediction was fulfilled in the 
days of the Messiah. And in direct allusion 
to this and similar passages he said, " I lay 
down my life for the sheep." " Other sheep I 
have which are not of this (Jewish) fold, them 
must I bring, and there shall be one fold and 
one shepherd." You hear one of those sheep 
saying, under a former dispensation, " The Lord 
is my shepherd, I shall not want ;" see Psalm 
xxiii, 1, 2, 3. David's Lord was Christ. See 
Psalm ex, 1, and Matt, xxii, 44. Again the 
church is called a " family ;" one family, not 
two or more. " Of whom the whole family in 
heaven and earth is named ;" see Eph. iii, 15. 
Sectarian bigotry, either among Jews or Chris- 
tians, would like to make partitions in this 
building of God, or divisions in this immense 



26 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

family; but the liberal-minded Paul, who had 
completed his education in the " third heaven," 
had learned that the true God had but one 
family in the universe. In the eleventh chapter 
of Hebrews we have the names of some of the 
most distinguished members of this family, from 
the first martyr, Abel, down to the venerable 
and faithful Samuel, who from a child of three 
years old had been actively and publicly en- 
gaged in the service of this church. 

Jesus, speaking of the Gentiles, says, " They 
shall come from the east and the west, and shall 
sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and the prophets 
in the kingdom of God." Whether you interpret 
the phrase " kingdom of God" to mean that part 
of the family which is on earth, or that part 
which is in heaven, either wdll answer our pur- 
pose. We thank God, ^' our Father who" is 
** in heaven," that he has but one family, and 
has constituted of angels and redeemed men 
one vast brotherhood. See Rev. vii, 9-17. 

Again, the church is called, in Rom. xi, 24, 
" a good olive tree." And although some of the 
branches w^ere broken off for unbelief, the olive 
-was never rooted up ; but on that stock the 
Gentiles were grafted, and the apostles in- 
formed the Jew^s that they should be grafted in 
again, if they abode not in unbelief. We admit 
there were, from time to time, circumstantial 
differences in the church of God under different 
dispensations, but her identity has been always 
maintained. She has been, and still is, substan- 
tially the same. She was once a family church, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 

then a national church, and subsequently a uni- 
versal church. She once looked forth as the 
morning, was afterward fair as the moon, and 
finally clear as the sun, and terrible as an army 
with banners. From the dawn of her morning 
to her meridian splendour, she leaned upon her 
beloved, " Christ." The furniture of this temple 
has been altered ; some of the branches of this 
olive tree broken off: but the temple's beauty 
is not marred ; and the " root and fatness of the 
olive tree" still remain. 

In conclusion, we remark, from the time 
the covenant of mercy was intimated to Adam 
and Eve in the garden of Eden, down to 
the call of Abraham, and to the confirming 
of that covenant with him; see Gen. xvii, 2, 
and Gal. iii, 1 7 ; and from that to the giving 
of the law, four hundred and thirty years 
after ; and from that to the coming of Christ ; 
and from his advent until now, men have been 
justified, sanctified, and for ever saved, in the 
same way, and under the auspices of the same 
covenant of mercy. For this is the " covenant 
confirmed of God in Christ, ^^ Gal. iii, 13-20. 
" He was made a curse for us," " that the bless- 
ing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, 
through Jesus Christ," that we might receive 
" ih^ promise of the Spirit through faith." Our 
Baptist friends contend that this covenant, of 
which circumcision was the sign and seal, con- 
tained only the grant of the earthly Canaan to 
the natural seed of Abraham. But surely the 
apostle understood the matter in an entirely 



28 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

different sense, for he says, the blessing of 
Abraham ivas to come on the Gentiles, and that 
they were to receive the promise of the Spirit 
by faith. This is precisely what Peter refers 
to, i. e., " the promise of the Spirit," when, on 
the day of Pentecost, referring to the charter 
of the gospel church, he says, " The promise is 
unto you, and to your children," &c.. Acts ii, 
38, 39. And in giving an account of the falling 
of the Spirit on Cornelius and his family, he 
says, " Forasmuch, then, as God gave them 
(the Gentiles) the like gift as he did unto us, 
(Jews,) who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
what was I, that I could withstand God?" Acts 
xi, 17. Here you see in Christ, according to 
the language of the covenant, all the families 
of the earth were to be blessed. 

St. Paul says, '• The scripture, foreseeing 
that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra- 
ham," Gal. iii, 8. This promise, referred to 
above, the promise of mercy and grace, " I will 
be a God to thee and to thy seed," was ordained 
in the hands of a Mediator ; and when this 
Mediator appeared, we find that a company of 
Jewish shepherds, and a company of Gentile 
philosophers, alike present themselves at his 
shrine as the representatives of the two great 
divisions of the family of man ; as the " first 
fruits of the fast coming harvest" of the world 
to Christ. 

When Jesus looked over the Samaritan 
people, he said to the apostles, " Say ye not four 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 29 

months, and then cometh harvest ? lift up your 
eyes and look on the fields, for they are white 
already to harvest." " Other men (patriarchs 
and prophets) have laboured, and ye have en- 
tered into their labours," John iv, 35, 38. The 
church has always been " God's husbandry" as 
well as " God's building," and the fields had 
been under culture for four thousand years. 
Although the state of morals in the visible 
church at the coming of Christ was greatly 
sunken, Jesus said to his disciples, " The 
scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; there- 
fore, whatsoever they command you, that ob- 
serve and do, but do ye not according to their 
works^ for they say, and do not." And of this 
visible church, John the Baptist and Jesus were 
both members, as also his apostles. For in 
addition to the observance of the rite of circum- 
cision, they kept the passover, up to the eve 
of Christ's apprehension and crucifixion. The 
true state of the case seems to be this : — When 
the Messiah, " the promised seed," the Mediator 
of the (Abrahamic) covenant,^' "the minister of 
the true tabernacle," appeared and presented 
his claims, those of the visible church who ad- 
mitted his Messiahship, and were gathered to 
the Shiloh, were continued in the true and good 
olive, and those who rejected him were broken 
off. The children of the visible kingdom 
were cast out, the rite of circumcision gave way 
to the rite of baptism, and the passover was 
superseded by the institution of the Lord's 
supper. See 1 Cor. v, 7. Our Baptist friends 



30 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

admit, this, so far as adults are concerned. It 
is true, however, that Mr. B., in his Strictures, 
pages 4 and 5, intimates very strongly that cir- 
cumcision has never been discontinued by an 
" express command." His words are, " Why 
not both circumcise and baptize them? You 
have never had any 'express command'^ to dis- 
continue the one, and practise the other." Now, 
candid reader, although Mr. B. may not be able 
to see in God's word any passage abrogating 
circumcision, yet you will see one in which it 
is set forth, if you will look at Acts xv, 1,2, 5, 
10,28,29. And we learn from Acts xvi, 4, 
that Paul, Silas, and Timotheus went through 
the churches, delivering the decrees to them 
on this subject ; and the decree on the " dis- 
continuing of circumcision" was the result of 
the judgment of a council of apostles and elders, 
confirmed by the Holy Ghost. See the passage 
above referred to. 

And in confirmation of the fact that baptism 
came in the place of circumcision, the apostle 
calls baptism the " circumcision of Christ," 
Col. ii, 11, 12. And I am supported in this 
opinion by one of Mr. B.'s witnesses : " The 
great Whitby (as he calls him, — and I suppose, 
if the testimony of the witness is good for Mr, 
B., his testimony will be as good for me against 
Mr. B. — Let us hear the witness) says, ' The 
apostle, speaking here of the circumcision made 
without hands, and of the circumcision made in 
baptism, and consisting in the putting off the 
sins of the flesh, cannot, by the circumcision 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 

of Christ, mean his own personal circumcision, 
which was made with hands, but that which he 
hath instituted in the room of it, viz., baptism. 
That baptism, therefore, is a rite of initiation 
to the Christians, as circumcision was to the 
Jews.' " See Whitby on the place. 

Who doubts that circumcision was the ini- 
tiating rite among the Jews, and in the church, 
from the day when Abraham was ninety-nine, 
and Ishmael thirteen years old. For as our 
Lord said, " Circumcision was not of Moses, 
but of the fathers." And if baptism is not the 
initiating rite, the seal and sign of the covenant 
of mercy, the church, under the gospel, has no 
initiatory rite. 

But Mr. B., p. 17, supposes that " the coming 
of the promised seed (the Messiah) put an end, 
however, to the Abrahamic covenant, and conse- 
quently to all its ordinances, for ever." Shock- 
ing ! that men should be willing to disannul the 
only covenant of mercy and grace from God to 
man, a covenant that embraced the promise of 
Messiah, and the blessing of all nations through 
him, iti order the more effectually to deprive 
unoffending infants of the rights which they had 
enjoyed unmolested for about two thousand years. 
Tinder what covenant, pray, do such conclude 
themselves 1 " Christ was made a curse for us, 
that the blessing of Abraham might come on 
us through faith." How, then, I ask, can the 
covenant be done away, and its blessings still 
enjoyed by Jews and Gentiles ? I hope it will 
not be said that the blessing- of Abraham is the 



32 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

possession of the earthly Canaan. God made 
two covenants with Abraham, one before the 
birth of Ishmael. See Gen. xv, 7-21. In this 
was contained the grant of the earthly Canaan 
to his natural seed, through the line of Isaac 
and Jacob. This covenant was ratified by the 
passing of a burning lamp and a smoking fur- 
nace between the pieces of slain beasts which 
Abram had provided, while a " horror of thick 
darkness fell upon Abram," emblematical, or 
typical, of the hard bondage which his natural 
seed should endure in Egypt. The metes and 
bounds of their inheritance were distinctly 
marked out. This covenant received not its 
full accomplishment until the days of David. 
See Acts vii, 45 ; 2 Samuel viii, 3, &c. ; and 
2 Chron. ix, 26. 

About fourteen years afterward God changed 
the name oi Ahram to that oi Abraham; see 
Gen. xvii, 5-27 ; and having said in regard to 
the first covenant, chap, xii, 2, " I will make of 
thee a great nation^ he now says, chap, xviii, 
4, 5, " Thou shalt be 2i father of many nations." 
This last is called, by way of eminence, " the 
COVENANT." Of this covcuant, circumcision 
was the sign and seal. 

I ask the candid reader to put the statements 
of Mr. B., on the subject of this covenant, in 
contact with the testimony of Zacharias, the 
father of John the Baptist. When John was 
eight days old, and they were about to perforrn 
upon the " unconscious infanf the rite of cir- 
cumcision — about to put upon him the seal of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 33 

the Ahrahamic covenant — the tongue of Zacha- 
rias was loosed, and being filled with the Holy 
Ghost, he uttered the following language : — 
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he 
hath visited and redeemed his people. And 
hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the 
house of his servant David; as he spake by 
the mouth of his holy prophets, which have 
been since the world began : that we should be 
saved from our enemies, and from the hand of 
all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised 
to our fathers, and to remember his holy cove- 
nant ; the oath which he sware to our father 
Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we 
being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, 
might serve him without fear, in holiness and 
righteousness before him, all the davs of ouc 
life ;" see Luke i, 67-80. 

Do these words even intimate that the ad- 
vent of the Messiah ^' would put an end to the 
Ahrahamic covenant?''^ as Mr. B. says above. 
And does Zacharias celebrate the abolition of 
this covenant ? Does he not rather bless God 
for the manifestation of the " mercy promised ^"^ 
and the bestowment of those important bless- 
ings included in the Ahrahamic covenant ? To 
remember his holy covenant, as a covenant-keep- 
ing God, is to give to those who have " takea 
hold of his covenant" those immunities vouch- 
safed in this contract or stipulation. 

The intelligent reader will perceive that Za- 
charias never intimates that the possession of 
the eartlily Canaan was any part of the bless- 
3 



34 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

ings embraced in the covenant of circumcision. 
The mercy pi^omised to our fathers embraced all 
spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus ; and only 
embraced temporal good secondarily. 

The temporal advantages connected with cir- 
cumcision were restricted to the seed of Abra- 
ham according to the flesh, through the line of 
Isaac. We read that " Abraham took Ishmael, 
his son, and all that were born in his house, 
and all that were bought with his money, every 
male of the family of Abraham, and circumcised 
the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, 
as God had said unto him." The circumcision 
of these persons entailed upon them no right to 
the land of Canaan ; nor did the circumcision 
of slaves in after times procure them either civil 
liberty or landed property ; they must therefore 
have received some spiritual privileges, or they 
gained nothing by the rite. Mr. B. says, page 
16 of his sermon, " We know that Esau and 
Ishmael, and others, descendants of Abraham, 
were rejected from the covenant of salvation by 
Jesus Christ." Then their circiuncision was a 
solemn mockery. 

How can he know this, when, according to 
his own showing, the covenant of salvation was 
not offered to them, and the only covenant of 
which they knew any thing was purely of a 
temporal nature? Hence he says, page 16, 
'' Every one of Abraham's natural descendants 
might have been sons of perdition, and yet all 
the ends proposed (by the covenant) might have 
been accomplished." Candid reader, can you 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 

credit such views ? " I speak as unto wise men, 
judj^e ye what I say." 

That Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from 
circumcision is clearly evident from Isaiah Ivi, 
6, 7, '* Also the sons of the stranger, that join 
themselves to the Lord to serve him, — and 
taketh hold of my covenant; even them wdll I 
bring to my holy mountain, and make them 
joyful in my house of prayer ; their burnt offer- 
ings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine 
altar," &c. 

As the covenant is called the covenant of 
circumcision, no uncircumcised person could 
take hold of it ; nor was it permitted to any one 
who had not received the sign of the covenant 
to enter into the temple and engage in its sacred 
services. The persons mentioned in the text 
therefore were circumcised Gentiles, and all the 
immunities v/hich they enjoyed, as here enume- 
rated, were of a purely religious nature. - 

The apostle Paul, who was well acquainted 
with this whole subject, has spoken, we think, 
in a way calculated to settle the question, Rom. 
iii, 1, 2, 3, "What profit is there of circum- 
cision ?" The answer is, " Much every way ; 
CHIEFLY, because that unto them were commit- 
ted the oracles of God.^'' We hope our Baptist 
friends will not make so wide a mistake as 
to say that the oracles of God are the earthly 
Canaan. 

Although the Jeics had temporal bene^fits as 
a nation^ connected with circumcision, yet the 
rite was not instituted on that account. " Cir- 



36 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

cnmcision xerily prof tetJi, if iliou keep the law; 
but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circum- 
cision is made w;icircumcision," Rom. ii, 25. 
Here, again, the profit of circumcision is not 
made to consist in the enjoyment of temporal 
blessings ; but in keeping the law, or oracles 
of God. Surely this did not regard the earthly 
Canaan. 

Mr. B. says, page 17 of his sermon, " While 
he (that is, Abraham) was, literally, the father 
of the whole Jewish family, he was, spiritually, 
the father of none but believers, even among his 
own offspring : and now, as circumcision was 
enjoined upon all his natural seed, it follows, 
of course, that the design of it was literal, and 
that its benefits were to be looked for in con- 
nection with the literal import of the several 
promises which God had made to him : thus, 
those who were circumcised should be acknow- 
ledged his natural descendants ; should be pro- 
tected by the arm of God in the enjoyment of 
the privileges connected with all that arrange- 
ment by which it was designed to keep them a 
separate nation ; and finally should inherit the 
land of Canaan. A candid observer must per- 
ceive, that as the literal provisions of this cove- 
nant were confined to Abraham's natural seed, 
the literal rites of the covenant must also be 
confined to that people." 

The statements made in this quotation are 
plainly; and flatly contradicted by the facts in 
the case. The three hundred and eighteen 
men of Abraham's house who were circum- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 

cised, were they a part of his natural seed! 
Geii. xiv, 14. And were those, and Ishmael, 
and his seed, kept a separate nation ? And did 
they finally inherit the land of Canaan ? Again ; 
were those servants acknovjledged his natural 
descendants? Mr. B. says so. What say you, 
candid reader ? The idea that circumcision w^as 
designed only as a national badge, (the idea 
that is so confidently advanced by some of our 
Baptist teachers,) is contradicted by the facts 
connected with the original institution ofcircum- 
cision, as well as by the facts connected with 
the histary of the institution. For if it was a 
national badge to the Jews, or descendants of 
Abraham by the line of Isaac and Jacob, it was 
equally so to the descendants of Abraham by 
the line of Ishmael and Esau. For the Ish- 
niaelites, iVrabians, and Saracens, all practised 
the rite ; and at this day, circumcision is the 
initiating rite to the Mohammedan as well as 
the Jew. 

How can that be a national badge to one 
nation that is practised by many nations ? ''I 
speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 

Having shown, as we trust, in the foregoing 
observations, the identity of the church, and 
that the covenant made with Abraham (of which 
circumcision was the sign and seal) was the 
covenant of grace, intimated in Eden to Adam, 
(when his whole posterity were yet in his 
loins,) and fully made known under the gospel 
dispensation ; the seed of the woman having 
now bruised the serpent's head, by his cruel- 



J>> OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, A.VD 

fixion on the cross, having •* been made a curse 
for us, that the ' blessing of Abraham'' might 
come on all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles ; 
that, according to the stipulations of the cove- 
nant, he might be the • father of many nations ;^^^ 
Ave shall now proceed to show that, in this 
covenant, (as imderstood anciently.) the right 
of infant church membership was recognised. 

In proof that infants were to be recognised 
as having membership in xh^ family churchy see 
Gen. xni, 11-13: "And ye shall circumcise 
the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a 
token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
And he that is eight days old shall be circum- 
cised among you, every male child in your 
generation : he that is bom in the house, or 
bought tcith money of any stranger, which is not 
of thy seed.^' This was the original constitution 
of the church of the true God : the original 
charter of that " Jerusalem which is the mother 
of us all,'' Gal. iv. 26. And here the rights of 
" unconscious babes'^ are acknowledged. 

This charter was in force, observe, four 
hundred and thirty years before the giving of 
the law. And St. Paul says, Gal. iii, 17, The 
law did not disannul the covenant which was 
confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and 
thirty years before. 

We see the covenant carried into effect in 
respect to children durinor the law. We quote, 
in proof, 2 Chron. xxxi, 14, 19. In this pas- 
sage, brethren, wives, sons, daughters, and littk 
ones, are all mentioned as enteriug into the house 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 

of the Lord. And this extended " through all 
the congregation," and we are told that Heze- 
kiah, in tliis arr'angemelat of the congregation, 
did that which was right and good before the 
Lord his God. Verse 20. Now we never heard 
it denied that the priests and Levites entered 
not into the active and official services of the 
temple until the age of thirty: we see this 
illustrated in the case of John the Baptist, who 
was of the tribe of Levi, and the family of 
Aaron. Yet we learn from the passage in. 
Chronicles, that the " little ones^^ of three years 
old entered into the " house of the Lord," and 
made a part of the congregation. 

This will throw light on that passage in 
' Deut. xxix, 10, 13, "Ye stand this day all of 
you before the Lord your God, ' ^our little oneSy 
&c., to enter into covenant with the Lord your 
God," &c. Children of three years old enter 
into covenant with God ? Yes, this is their own 
personal act. Nor are these the only places 
where little ones are public characters ; for 
Joshua, in confirming or renewing the national 
covenant on Mount Gerizim, " read all the 
words of the law, the blessings and cursings, 
according to all that is written in the book of 
the law," to the little ones — to children three 
years old. Josh, viii, 34, 35. " It is clear from 
the passages adduced, that children of three 
years old were members of the national church, 
and engaged in the most sacred rites and so- 
lemn transactions, equally with their fathers. 
They were, no doubt, subject to the same pre- 



40 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

paratory purifications, and were treated on the 
same ritual principles as their fathers." 

You find from 1 Sam. i, 22, 24,28, and ii, 11, 
that as soon as Hannah weaned Samuel, she 
brought him and lent him to the Lord, " And he 
ministered unto the Lord before Eli tJie priest, 
being a child girded with a linen ephod." 

" Having shown that, by the authority of God, 
infants were recei\'^ed into the covenant and the 
church ; that at three years of age they were 
publicly recognised as members of the church, 
and personally performed public acts of mem- 
bership, it follows, that the same divine author- 
ity which granted the right must be shown to 
have cancelled it, before they can justly be de- 
prived of it ; and as no one pretends that God 
has prohibited the membership of infants undxr 
the gospel, the original grant must remain in full 
force.'''' 

We shall explain this part of the subject by 
an illustration or two. What is called in most 
of the states of this Union the common law, is 
the law of the commonwealth, unless in the 
particular case the common law has been re- 
pealed by express statute law. Hence it is 
sometimes a question in the courts, (which 
cannot be decided without an appeal,) whether 
the case before the court is actionable at com- 
mon law, or whether it has been provided for 
by express statute. Apply the matter. Wc 
find the right of infant church membership 
acknowledged in the Old Testament Scriptures, 
and in the church of God, for about two thou- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 

sand years. We take their having had a title 
as prima facie evidence that they have a title 
still. We look into the New Testament, (which 
I consider the book of statute law for the 
church,) to see if there is any precept or pre- 
cedent, any " Thus saith the Lord," for ex- 
cluding infants ; any abrogating statute ; and 
we find none. Take another case : There is 
now in Virginia what is called a " new constitu- 
lion ;" has any intelligent citizen of the state 
ever entertained an idea that this is any other 
than the old constitution amended, by the au- 
thority of the state, vested in a convention of 
the citizens ? Are not the privileges of the citi- 
zens precisely the same as under the old con- 
stitution, except so far as that was amended by 
the direct action of the convention ? Do not the 
strong features of the constitution remain the 
same ? Were the terms of citizenship altered ? 
or the essential privileges of the citizens in- 
fringed, by the partial amendments which are 
found to have been made ? Or does any citizen 
infer other amendments, from the fact that he 
finds some plainly stated in the new charter or 
constitution ? And if a question should arise in 
the state about implied privileges, or abridged 
rights, I suppose the gentleman who should 
indulge his imagination in the case would be 
expected to furnish the burden of proof to sup- 
port his inferences : he would not be allowed to 
change the old constitution by inference. Apply 
the illustration to the case in hand. We call 
upon our Baptist friends to show, if they can, 



42 OBLIGATIOxV, SUBJECTS, AND 

that there has taken place, under the New 
Testament dispensation, any essential change 
in the privileges of the churchy or its members. 
Zion, indeed, has " enlarged her borders," but 
her " citizens'^ and their privileges are suhstan- 
tially the same. Here we might rest this branch 
of the argument, until those who exclude little 
children from the visible family of God should 
produce the statute of repeal by which their 
privileges are taken away. And till this be 
done, their rights may be safely rested upon the 
original grant. But we shall show not only 
that they were in the church formerly, but that 
Christ did not exclude them under the gospel 
economy. 

I am aware that many objections are urged 
against the administration of the ordinance to 
children ; and when argument fails, sneers and 
ridicule are made to do what argument cannot ^ 
and Scripture will not, accomplish. It is called 
** infant sprinkling," •' baby sprinkling." And 
again it is asked, " What do they know about 
the ordinance ?" Take one specimen of many, 
from Mr. Broaddus's sermon, p. 41 : " Thanks 
to the ingenuity of Pope Stephen III. for an 
invention which secures the dear little crea- 
tures a place in heaven, without the inconve- 
nience and danger of being plunged into a 
stream or pool of water." It is likely Mr. B. 
has a better opinion of the pope's close commu- 
nion. Query : Can he, or the pope, furnish a 
*' Thus saith the Lord," for excluding their 
brethren from the table of our common Lord, 



T 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 

and thus " making terms of communion that are 
not terms of salvation T' See Robert Hall's 
Works. Can Mr. B. furnish a " Thus saith the 
Lord" for the observance of the first day of the 
week as the Christian sabbath, instead of the 
seventh 1 Yet he, and the whole Christian 
world, so far as I know, (except the seventh- 
day Baptists,) agree to adopt it as the sabbath. 
I suppose that can be managed without an 
express warranty and can be abundantly made 
out from precedent and inference^ &c., &c., as 
it does not stand in the way of " believers' 
baptism," or " baptism by immersion." We 
trust, candid reader, to furnish you evidence, 
with regard to the subjects of baptism, which 
shall not, with you, at least, be set aside by 
irony or ridicule. 

PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 

That baptism was in existence before the 
days of John the Baptist seems evident from 
the writings of some of the Jews, especially as 
practised in the case of proselytes. Maimonides 
holds on this subject the following language : — 
" In ALL ages, when a heathen (ox a stranger by 
nation) was willing to enter into the covenant of 
Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the 
majesty of God, and take upon himself the yoke 
of the law, he must be first circumcised, and 
secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice; 
or if the party were a woman, then she must he 
first BAPTIZED, and secondly bring a sacrificed 
— Clarke's Commentary at the end of Mark. 



44 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

And this fact does not rest on the authority of 
the Jews alone, for that the practice existed, 
and was known to the heathens, is clear from 
the words of Epictetns : (he is blaming those 
who assume the profession of philosophy with- 
out acting up to it:) "Why do you call your- 
self a stoic ? Why do you deceive the multi- 
tude ? Why do you pretend to be a Greeks 
when you are a Jevj, a Syrian, an Egyptian ? 
And when we see one wavering, we are wont 
to say, This is not a Jeio, but acts one. But 
when he assumes the sentiments of one who 
hath been baptized and circumcised, then he both 
really is, and is called a Jew," &c. 

This practice, then, of the Jews — proselyte 
baptism — was so notorious to the heathens in 
Italy and Greece, that it furnished this philo- 
sopher with an object of comparison. Now, 
Epictetus lived to be very old — he is placed by 
Dr. Lardner A.D. 109 ; by Le Clerc, A.D. 104. 
He could not be less than sixty years of age 
when he wrote this : and he might obtain his 
information thirty or forty years earlier, which 
brings it up to the time of the apostles. Those 
who could think that the Jews could institute 
proselyte baptism, at the very moment v»'hen the 
Christians were practising baptism as an initia- 
tory rite, are not to be envied for the correct- 
ness of their judgment. The rite dates much 
earlier, probably many ages. I see no reason 
for disputing the assertion of Maimonides, not- 
withstanding Dr. Gill's rash and fallacious lan- 
guage on the subject. See Facts and Evi- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 

dences, as quoted by Watson. " This baptism 
of proselytes, as Dr. Liglitfoot has fully shown, 
was a ha-ptism of families^ and comprehended 
their infant children; and the rite was a symbol 
of their being washed from the pollution of 
idolatiy. Very different, indeed, in the extent 
of its import and office, was Christian baptism 
to. the Jewish baptism; nevertheless, this shows 
that the Jews were familiar with the rite as it 
extended to children, in cases of conversions 
from idolatry; and, as far at least as the con- 
verts from paganism to Christianity were con- 
cerned, they could not but understand Christian 
baptism to extend to the infant children of Gen- 
tile proselytes, unless there had been, what we 
nowhere find in the discourses of Christ, or the 
writings of the apostles, an express exception of 
them." — Watson on Baptism. 

It is objected to infant baptism that infants 
are not capable of believing, and that as the 
apostles received a commission to baptize be- 
lievers, Mark xvi, 15, 16, therefore infants ought 
to be refused the ordinance. This reason lies 
equally against infant salvation. An argument 
that proves too much (as this does) proves no- 
thing, only that he who uses it is hard run for an 
argument. Let us look at this matter a moment. 
Infants cannot believe, therefore they ought not 
to be baptized. Infants cannot believe, there* 
fore they must be damned ! For the text says, 
" He that helieveth not shall be damned." Mr. 
B. says, p. 7, "I will engage to prove, that the 
commission actually excludes all unbelievers^ 



46 OBLIGATION, SrBJECTS, AND 

whether unconscious infants or unbelieving 
adiilts." " Why tell them to baptize believers, 
if they were to baptize all men indiscrimi- 
nately T' WTiy should he thus "beat the air?" 
He never heard an intelligent Pedobaptist say 
that " all men indiscriminatelj/^' are to be baptized. 
Why did he not quote Eph. ii, 8 ? " By grace 
are ye saved through faith." But infants have 
no faith ; therefore they cannot be saved. Or 
this : " If any will not work, neither shall he 
eat." Children cannot work, therefore children 
should not be allowed to eat ; and thus, by his 
reasoning, furnish a pretext for starving children 
according to the word of the apostle. Or he 
might have quoted : " The Lord Jesus shall be 
revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking 
vengeance on them that know not God, and 
obey not the gospel." Infants know not God, 
and obey not the gospel, therefore he will take 
vengeance on them, &;c. This is a kind of 
logic that puts more in the conclusion than is in 
the premises, and is therefore a mere sophism. 
Again: '-Baptism," say they, ''is the answer 
of a good conscience ; infants cannot have the 
answer of a good conscience, therefore they 
ought not to be baptized." Infants have not an 
evil conscience, and that is more than can be said 
for many adults, who have been baptized upon 
a profession of faith. They have innocence to 
recommend them ; while of Simon Magus it is 
said, '• Simon himself believed also ; and when 
he was baptized," (fee. We soon hear of this 
man who had received ** believers' baptism," 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 

that his heart " is not right in the sight of God/' 
*' he is in the gall of bitterness.''^ " Thou hast 
no part or lot in this matter." And 1 conclude 
Simon's was not a solitary case. 

Mr. B.'s illustration on page 7 I think very 
unfortunate ; because there is an obvious v^ant 
of analogy in the case. His words are, " Sup- 
pose the governor of Virginia should send out 
recruiting officers, under a commission reading 
as follows, viz. : Go through all the state and 
call upon all the inhabitants to enlist in the 
army, giving them ten dollars each ;" he says, 
" can any one suppose that unconscious infants 
are included among those who are to receive 
the ten dollars ?" " The cases {Jie says) are 
precisely parallel." I suppose, if infants were 
as capable of being soldiers, of bearing arms, 
and marching to the battle field, as they were 
anciently, and are now, of receiving the sign of 
the covenant, then indeed there might be some 
analogy; but until that is proved, we shall not 
allow Mr. B. to pass off assumption for proof, 
or sophistry for argument, or agree that he shall 
heg the question where the proof is absent ; as he 
has done more than once in his Strictures and 
sermons. 

Again : the wording of the commission, in 
Matt, xxviii, 19, 20, is urged against the pro- 
priety of admitting children to baptism. We 
must always try to put ourselves in the circum- 
stances of those who are addressed, and ask 
what would be the sense which, in their peculiar 
circumstances^ we would have been likely to put 



48 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

upon the words. Dr. Watts remarks, that we 
often interpret the meaning of terms from early 
impressions made upon us by local circum- 
stances. Hence, says he, '' a youth raised in 
sight of a parish church, that has a steeple on 
it, always associates in his mind, when he 
hears the word church, the idea of a house with 
a steeple,^^ &c. So when a man unacquainted 
with ancient customs reads in the New Testa- 
ment, " Men do not put new wine into old 
bottles, lest the bottles burst," &c., he is at a 
loss to understand the matter ; for his mind 
directly recurs to the fact that glass bottles 
which have been tried can be better trusted to 
stand the process of vinous fermentation than 
new ones. But there was no difficulty in the 
minds of those to whom the words were spoken 
originally ; because they knew of no bottles ex- 
cept those made of skins, which were always 
strongest when new. 

If the original commission to " disciple all 
nations, baptizing them," &c., had been given 
to Mr. B., or any of his brethren, of whom it 
may be said that " infant baptism is their soul's 
abhorrence," I frankly confess that it would 
have been necessary to give such spccijic 
directions to admit the children to the ordinance 
with the parents ; and it might have been ne- 
cessary, for aught I know, to work a miracle 
in order to convince them that there was any 
sense or justice in baptizing " a babe.^^ Christ 
might have found their prejudices as stubborn 
as were Peter's, who could not discover that 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 

" God was no respecter of persons, until, while 
in a trance, a sheet was let down from heaven, 
and a v^oice said to him three times, Kill and 
eat ;" and the Spirit said, " Go with the men 
(of Cornelius) doubting nothing, for I have sent 
them." Men's prejudices become very invete- 
rate, especially when they grow up under a 
system of exclusiveness. Hear Mr. B., page 27, 
for the proof of the above : '* This species of 
tyranny over men's consciences (i. e., baptizing 
infants) would better suit the avowed doctrines 
of the Church of Rome, than the professed libe- 
rality of Protestants. It would be difficult for 
nxe to 'perceive any thing more arhitrary in bap- 
tizing adults at the point of the sirord, than ia 
taking unconscious infants, and imposing upon 
them submission to a religious rite, with respect 
to which they have no volition or choice." 

The reader can perceive from this quotation 
the views and feelings of Mr. B. with regard to 
infant baptism. I hesitate not to declare, that 
the doctrine contained ia the above is calculated 
to subvert that order and subordination v/hich is 
necessary to the v/ell-being of society. For if 
it is tyranny in the parent to dedicate the child 
to God in baptism, without the child's choice ; 
then is the child's liberty taken away, if the 
parent requires it to observe the Christian sab- 
bath, or to go to the house of God, instead of to 
the temple of an idol. The apostle considered 
it not warring with the liberty of the gospel, or 
of the child, to say, '• Children, obey your pa- 
rents in all things,'" Col. iii, 20 ; and to require 
4 



50 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

tlie parent " to bring them up in the nurture 
and admonition of the Lord," Eph. vi, 4. If the 
judgment of the parent is to govern the child in 
its minority, surely it cannot be a sore evil to 
the child to be dedicated to' God in baptism, 
before it is instructed and admonished in the 
Lord. Such '' tyrannical parents^^ have the ex- 
ample of Abraham, the father of the faithful, to 
encourage them ; and the example of all the 
faithful, from Abraham down to Joseph and 
Mary, the reputed father and real mother of 
Jesus ; for at eight days old, Jesus was solemnly 
recognized as a member of the church, by the 
rite of circumcision. Yet this, according to 
Mr. B., was about as arbitrary as if John, at 
the age of thirty, had baptized him " at the 
point of the sword." 

From the above it will appear how inveterate 
are the prejudices of this gentleman against 
infant baptism. Hence I say, if he, and those 
-who think and feel as he does on this subject, 
had received the commission which Peter and 
his fellow apostles received, the directions to 
admit infants would, of necessity, have been 
very definite. But as it was, the commission 
•was put into the hands of Jews, who had never 
known a church that did not admit, and main- 
lain, the right of infant church membership. 
They, of course, would so understand the com- 
mission, as to admit the children with their 
parents, as was always the case when Gen- 
tiles were proselyted to the Jewish religion. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 51 

Being well acquainted with this practice, they 
would admit the children, unless forbidden to 
do so. 

Peter and his brethren had never learned to 
think of a church that excluded children from 
membership, and of course would not attempt 
to form a church upon a new model, unless spe- 
cifically directed so to do. Jewish children were 
called the '^ disciples of Moses ;" and when the 
commission said, " Go and disciple all nations, 
baptizing them and teaching them," &c., they 
would make disciples of adults and their chil- 
dren, as the Jewish missionaries had been ac- 
customed to do from the beginning. They who 
valued themselves upon being the children of 
Abraham would not reject the infant children 
of the followers of Abraham's faith. " If ye be 
Christ's, then are ye Abraharn's seed, and heirs 
according to the promise." St. Paul. 

It is objected further, if they are admitted to 
baptism, on the same ground they ought to be 
admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 
This objection is more specious than valid. It 
is evident to all who reflect, that there is a 
manifest difference existing in the tvvO ordi- 
nances, baptism and the Lord's supper, — as is 
obvious from the Scriptures, and from the prac- 
tice of the Baptists themselves. I suppose they 
do not admit all to the communion (hov/ever 
unworthy) who have been once baptized. Now, 
infants have no capacity to " discern the Lord's 
body," or to examine themselves before ap- 



52 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

proacbing the supper. Nor is it ever said of 
baptism, " He that receives it unworthily, re- 
ceives it to his own damnation." 

The children of Jewish parents, though regu- 
lar church members, did not eat of the passover 
until a given age. So says Calvin, Institutes, 
b. iv, ch. 16: "The passover, which has now 
been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not 
admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously; 
but was rightly eaten only by those who were 
of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its 
signification." 

Josephus says, Antiq., lib. xii, ch. 4, " The 
]ew forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice before 
he has come to the temple, and there presented 
an offering to God." 

" Children at the age of twelve years," says 
Poole, " were brought by their parents to the 
temple ; and from that time they hegari to eat 
of the passover, and other sacrifices." 

I shall quote but three more authorities on 
this point. 

" Till a child was twelve years old, he was 
not obliged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the 
passover." — Stackhouse, Hist. Bib., b. viii, ch. 1. 

" The males were not brought to the temple 
till they were twelve years old, and the sacrifices 
they ate were chiefly peace offerings, which 
became the common food to all that were clean 
in the family." — Dr. Doddridge, Lee, p. 9, 
prop. 155. 

Hence we find, in Luke ii, 21, 41, 42, that 
although Jesus was circumcised at eight days 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 

old, and his parents went up every year to the 
passover feast, yet there is no intimation that 
Jesus ever kept the feast, until he was twelve 
years old : *' And when he was twelve years 
old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom 
of the feast." The learned Dr. Gill, a Baptist 
writer, has spoken to the same effect : " Ac- 
cording to the maxims of the Jews," says he, 
" persons were not obliged to the duties of the 
law, or subject to its penalties in case of non- 
performance, until they were, a female, at the 
age of twelve years and one day, and a male 
at the age of thirteen years and one day. But 
then they used to train up their children, and 
inure them to religious exercises before. They 
were not properly under the law until they had 
arrived at the age above mentioned ; nor were 
they reckoned adult church members until then, 
nor then neither, unless worthy persons : for 
so it is said, ' He that is worthy, at thirteen 
years of age, is called a son of the congrega- 
tion of Israel.' " — ^GilPs Com. on Luke ii, 42. 

From the examination of this objection to 
infant baptism, our views are strengthened ; for 
it appears that although infants were formerly 
circumcised, they were not required to eat the 
passover. And although infants are to be bap- 
tized, ^^ as they may he the subjects of the renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost, and sprinkling of the 
blood of Christ," signified by baptism, and can 
thus be distinguished visibly as the special 
property of Christ, yet they cannot, in the sup- 
per, " discern the Lord's body," and partake of 



54 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

it '' in remembrance of him ;" and are morally 
and physically incapable of coming to the 
Lord's table, according to the meaning of the 
institution. 

And although, at some periods of the history 
of the church, in some places infant communion 
was held ; yet it was never said to have come 
down from the days of the apostles, nor did it 
ever generally prevail in the Christian church. 
I suppose it came into the church as an inno- 
vation, the result of superstition, and prevailed 
about as extensively, and stood upon the same 
footing, as the practice of baptizing men and 
women naked ; dipping them three times, and 
then giving milk and honey to the baptized. 

We shall, in the next place, try to ascertain 
how the apostles understood their commission, 
from the manner in which they executed it, as 
we find the matter detailed in the Acts of the 
Apostles. 

We think it cannot be shown that in any case 
where parents were baptized, their children 
were left still to be the disciples of Moses, or 
in an outcast heathen state. We think the 
cases of family or household baptism recorded, 
furnish, at least, very strong presumptive evi- 
dence for infant baptism ; and I suppose pre- 
sumptive evidence for them will be considered 
good, until some counter evidence is produced. 

It is true that Mr. Broaddus says, (sermon, 
page 11,) *'I have myself baptized four house- 
holds, and not an infant among them." In the 
whole course of his ministry, I suppose la 



^ 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 55 

some twelve or fourteen years, after baptizing 
hundreds, as I presume, he has baptized ''four 
households, and not an infant among them." I 
really feel a little curiosity to know who they 
were, and how many souls the four households 
contained. I wonder if there were any married 
persons among them? I hope, if this gentle- 
man should write again, he will give us some 
information on these extraordinary cases, for it 
is surely extraordinary to hear of a Baptist 
preacher baptizing even one household, except, 
perhaps, where a man and his wife, or a bachelor 
and his maiden sister, constitute a household. 
We are thankful to Mr. B. for this piece of in- 
formation. It seems, then, that in the course 
of his whole ministry, after having baptized 
hundreds, he has met with and baptized four 
households that had no infants in them. 

Now, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the 
Epistles, there are a few families only men- 
tioned. And in every case where there is 
mention of a family, there is the total absence 
of evidence that any part of the family was 
refused baptism. In every case where baptism 
is mentioned in connection with a family, the 
evidence, as far as it goes, is in favour of the 
baptism of the parent and the children. 

We will take, first, the case of Lydia, Acts 
xvi, 15: "And when she was baptized, and 
her household^ But Mr. B. thinks, page 10, 
that possibly the household were " Lydia's 
partners in her mercantile operations ;" he says, 
possibly they w ere ''journeymen diers^'' ** or 



56 OBLIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 

were they mere travelling companions ?" Our 
Baptist friends are so bent upon cutting off the 
right of infants to baptism, that they will sup- 
pose any thing, however preposterous, to evade 
the argument drawn from household baptisms. 

They will suppose that even partners ia 
business with Lydia, or '* journeymen diers^'* 
were baptized, and constituted "brethren," al- 
though there is no intimation that she had so 
much as one partner or one journeyman ; and if 
she had, (which we think very unhkely,) then 
they were baptized and made brethren, without 
grace ; for the passage makes no mention of 
the heart of any pei^on being opened, except 
Lydia's ; and there is no intimation that those 
journeymen either repented or believed, and 
of course could not have received '^ believer's 
baptism." I appeal to you, reader, to judge, 
who Avould be the most fit for baptism, — the 
children of a believing mother, or a house- 
hold oi graceless '"'journeymen diersy " I speak 
as unto wise men." 

God said, " I will be a God to thee and to 
thy seed.^^ Peter said, " The promise is unto 
you and your children.^' And Luke says, " Lydia 
was baptized, and her household J^ " Judge ye 
what I say." 

Is there not strong presumptive evidence 
that the apostles baptized children with their 
parents 1 

But Mr. B. had to suppose that Lydia had a 
dying establishment, in order to lind a use for 
"journeymen;" and then he thinks it would 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 

have been " unsuitable" and " inconvenient" for 
her to have brought her infant or infants with 
her such a distance, even if she had them at 
home. He thinks it " very improbable" that 
she would have them with her. Now, candid 
reader, I think just the reverse; for if Lydia 
left Thyatira, and came to Philippi, and set up 
a dying establishment that needed journeymen, 
and went to housekeeping with her " partners" 
or "journeymen," or both, then / say, it is ex- 
tremely improbable that she would have left any 
part of her family at Thyatira, much less her 
" infant offspring.". However inconvenient it 
might be to a mother to bring her chil.dren such 
a distance, yet with a mother^s heart, she would 
doubtless find it much more inconvenient to 
have them so far from her. 

The editor of Calmet, Facts and Evidences, 
pp. 13, 14, has proved that oiKog, the word used 
in the passage, when spoken of persons, de- 
notes a family of children — and includes chil- 
dren of all ages. And he offers not ovlIj ffty 
examples to prove it, but says that " three hun- 
dred instances have been examined, and have 
proved perfectly satisfactory." 

The same writer says, that when the sacred 
writers include servants, and the whole domes- 
tic establishment, they use the word oiKia, and 
the passage above should be read, " And when 
she was baptized and her family." Lydia, then, 
had a family of children ; and these children 
were baptized at the same time with their 
mother. 



58 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Again, as this woman appears not to have 
been past the meridian of life, the presumption 
is that part of those children were young. What 
Mr. B. says about those persons who consti- 
tuted Lydia's family being the brethren spoken 
of in the fortieth verse who were comforted by 
Paul and Silas, when examined a little, will 
appear destitute even of probability. He asks, 
with an air of triumph, " Can these things be 
said with propriety of unconscious babes ?" I 
answer, No, — and there is no necessity that they 
should be so applied. Reader, if you will look 
at verses 16, 18, you will find that the apostles 
held public meetings in Philippi ''many days'^^ 
after Lydia's conversion before they were cast 
into prison ; and during all that time exercised 
their ministry unmolested, until they cast the 
spirit of divination out of a " girl ;" which cir- 
cumstance led to the imprisonment of Paul and 
Silas. There can be no doubt that many were 
converted at these meetings ; especially as Paul, 
in his epistle to this church, represents them, as 
having lived in fellowship in the gospel " frOxM 
THE FIRST DAY," Phil, i, 5. And, moreover, 
there were two of the apostolic company w^ho 
were not in the prison with Paul and Silas, as 
you will see by examining the context. The 
company consisted at least of — 1st, Timothy; 
2d, Paul ; 3d, Silas ; 4th, Luke. They lodged 
at the house of Lydia, until Paul and Silas 
were cast into prison. On the day after they 
were released from their imprisonment, " they 
entered into the house of Lydia: and when 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 

they had seen the brethren, they comforted them 
and departed." This verse does not so much 
as intimate that " the brethren" were Lydia's 
family. When the intelligence of the release 
of the apostles from prison was noised abroad, 
of course the whole of the brethren, Timothy, 
Luke, and others, would repair to Paul's lodgings 
to see him ; and when he had given them his 
farewell benediction, he departed. 

Once more, on this case of family baptism. 
It will be urged, there is no positive proof that 
there were infants in the family of Lydia. True, 
and there is no positive proof that there were 
any adults besides Lydia herself. " But here 
is positive proof of the baptism of children, and 
a family of children, mentioned in connection 
with the baptism of the imrent, without a hint 
being dropped respecting their faith, conversion, 
or consent, or even of their attending to the 
things spoken of Paul ; though the account con- 
tains a detail of the parents' conversion, in such 
a way, that their conversion could not well have 
escaped notice had it actually taken place." 

" It will not be contended, we presume, by 
the Baptists, that any adults were baptized of 
whose faith we have not good proof, ^or this 
would destroy the whole fabric of 'believers' 
baptism.' When, therefore, we find children 
baptized of whose faith we have no proof at 
all, the conclusion is inevitable, that children 
were not baptized by the apostles on the same 
grounds as adults." 

" If the sacred writers have taken care to 



60 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

apprize us of the previous faith of all the adults 
who received baptism, in order that succeeding 
ministers might not mistake in giving the ordi- 
nance to an adult unbeliever ; did it not equally 
behoove them, if they required the same quali- 
fications in children, to use the same care in 
notifying their faith, with the record of their 
reception of the ordinance ? And as, in fact, 
they have not done this, does it not necessarily 
follow, that faith in children is not a necessary 
qualification?'''^^— D. Isaac, p. 185. 

In fact, we never should have known that 
Lydia had a family, were they not incidentally 
mentioned as accompanying her in baptism : — 
" And when she was baptized and her family." 
Insert her baptism, we find her family ; omit 
her baptism, she has no family recorded : the 
act of her baptism cannot be separated from 
that of her family. Now if her family were of 
mature age, capable of " attention to the word 
spoken," capable of having their hearts opened, 
capable of believing, how is it that they are not 
mentioned together with her, as attending, <&:c., 
since they are mentioned together with her as 
receiving baptism 1 Surely, Luke did not think 
their being baptized a more important fact than 
their having " their hearts opened," &c., so that 
he should mention the one and omit the other : 
but I shall be told, we are to infer their repent- 
ance and faith from the fact of their baptism. 
Our opponents are as glad to be allowed an 
inference sometimes as their neighbours. But, 
if their conversion is to be inferred from the fact 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 61 

of their baptism, then might the conversion of 
the mother be inferred from her baptism, and 
there was no necessity that Luke should have 
detailed the circumstances of her change; we 
might have settled the ichole matter by inference, 
as well as a part of it. And as he detailed the 
circumstances of the conversion of the mother, 
and said nothing of the family, only that they 
were baptized with her, the inference, we think, 
in the minds of all who have not a theory to 
support by rejecting the evidence, must be irre- 
sistible, that they did not receive baptism on 
the same conditions that Lydia did, but were 
made disciples by baptism, that they might be 
taught " the things belonging to the ' kingdom 
of God.'" 

The cases of the household of Stephanus, 
1 Cor, i, 16, and the household of the Philip- 
pian jailer. Acts xvi, 33, we shall not dwell 
upon. One remark or two on this last men- 
tioned case, and we shall proceed. 

Our Baptist friends have often attempted to 
do away the evidence drawn from this case, as 
Mr. B. does, Sermon, p. 10, by referring to that 
part of the passage v/hich says, that they spake 
to him the word of the Lord and to ail that were 
in his house, and that he rejoiced, believing in 
God, with all his house, &c. The preaching 
evidently took place in the outer prison, where 
Paul and Silas were, before they were thrust 
into the hmer prison; "and they spake to him 
the word of the Lord and to all that were in his 
house." Ver. 32. Here the word oima is used, 



62 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

which includes the buildings occupied by the 
servants and prisoners, as well as those appro- 
priated to the use of the family. See Mr. Tay- 
lor's Facts and Evidences. When St. Paul 
says, ver. 31, " Thou shalt be saved and thy 
house," he uses another word, oiKog^ which in- 
cludes the parents and children. Hence, when 
he believed, we find, ver. 33, " Jie was baptized, 
and all his, straightway T And suppose his 
family did rejoice with him, there might still 
be infants in it. Have you never read, " Out 
of the mouth of hahes and sucklings thou hast 
perfected praise ?" 

It would be well if our Baptist friends would 
seriously consider this case in the light of truth 
and the spirit of candour. Though the servants 
and prisoners together must have amounted to 
several persons, and though the family was 
undoubtedly numerous, yet we do not read of 
any one besides him, and all his, being bap- 
tized. If we suppose, with a Baptist, that the 
whole of the jailer's family were converted 
under this sermon, it would be one of the most 
singular circumstances which the history of the 
church has furnished, that the work of conversion 
should stop just there ; — not one of all his family 
left ; not one of all the rest taken. 

Allow, the children loere baptized on the ground 
of their father'' s faith, and all the mystery and 
difficulty of the passage vanishes at once. — 
D. Isaac, p. 192. 

One thing at least is certain, that the jailer 
and his family were not baptized according to 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 

the practice among the Baptists of modern 
times. For we learn from the passage, that 
" they were baptized the same hour of the 
night." No such case can be found in the 
history of those who deny infant baptism. 
There are four reasons why a Baptist minister 
would not have baptized the jailer and his 
family, as the apostles did, after about half an 
hour's leaching. 

1st, He would not have deemed them suffi- 
ciently instructed. They were all idolaters an 
hour before. 

2d, They could not have furnished the re- 
quired evidences of their being the subjects of 
a gracious change. It is common for Baptists to 
delay baptism for weeks, sometimes for months. 

3d, The concurrence of the church could not 
be had. Lydia and '' the brethren" must have 
been consulted. 

4th, There was no opportunity for a public 
profession of Christianity, where the " imposing 
ordinance'^ could be witnessed. 

I judge that the " pattern" St. Paul worked 
by differed in several respects from the pattern 
of those who hold nothing but believers^ baptism. 

Perhaps we could show (if we were disposed 
to cavil and find fault v/ith our neighbours) that 
the practice of our Baptist friends differs very 
widely from the practice of the apostles, as we 
find theirs detailed in the Acts. 

We have dwelt longer on the baptism of 
families than we intended. We shall therefore 
proceed to other evidence for infant baptism. 



64 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

We next adduce what our Lord says, Mark 
X, 13-16 ; Luke xviii, 15 ; Matt, xix, 13:" Suf- 
fer the little children to come unto me, and for- 
bid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God ^ 
With this passage Mr. B. seems somewhat per- 
plexed, for he endeavours to make it appear 
that those children might have been capable 
of believing. Sermon, p. 1 3, and Strict., p. 8, 
he says, " I am led to doubt exceedingly whether 
the children brought to Jesus were unconscious 
babes, or w^hether there ever were any uncon- 
scious infants brought to JesusT Now I suppose, 
if they had been capable of '' believing," as Mr. 
B. supposes, then neither the disciples nor even a 
Baptist preacher would have rebuked those that 
brought them, or have ''foi^bidden the children ;" 
as believers are not only capable of being 
" blessed," but have a right to baptism, accord- 
ing to our opponents. Luke says they were 
" infants." I presume tlieir infants were about 
as ''•unconscious^^ as our infants. How ridicu- 
lous it is to see a man come with " Schrevelius's 
Lexicon," or any other Lexicon^ m his hand, to 
tell, or prove to plain people, that although Mark 
says they were " young children,'' and Jesus 
calls them " little children,^'' and Matthew calls 
them " little children,'^ and Luke says they were 
*' infants^'' and they all say " they v:ere brought'^ 
to Jesus, and " he took them up i?i his arms,^' and 
put his hands on them, " yet there never were 
any unconscious infants brought to Jesus r 

In his Strictures, Mr. B. has tried one mode 
of evading this case ; and in his sermon, another 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 

mode, both equally absurd, and going alike to 
show how very obnoxious the case of those 
children is to the Baptist cause. 

The phrase " kingdom of God," and " king- 
dom of heaven," used by the evangelists, 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I hold to mean, gene- 
rally, the church under the gospel dispensation : 
" The kingdom which (Daniel said) the God of 
heaven was to set up at the end of the seventy 
weeks," represented in the vision by the " little 
stone taken out of the mountain without hands," 
Dan. ii, 44, 45. I am not only supported in 
this view by critics generally, but also by that 
famous Baptist preacher, Robert Hall, His 
words are — " The kingdom of God, a phrase 
which is constantly employed in Scripture to 
denote that state of things which is placed 
under the avowed administration of the Mes- 
siah."— Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 372. Now 
Christ says, " Of such (' infants,' ' little chil- 
dren') is the kingdom of God," and says to the 
adults who were present, " Verily I say unto 
you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom 
of God as a little child, he shall not enter 
therein." It is worthy of remark, that while 
the disciples forbid the children, and rebuked 
those that brought them, the Master " was 
much displeased" with those knowing adults, 
and took the infants in his bosom, and gave 
them his blessing. A Baptist may ask, '' How 
could an infant be blessed?" they are " uncon- 
scious," " why should infants be forced without 
their choice" to Christ, and have his blessing 
5 



66 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

put upon them " without their consent?" ^' They 
might choose to reject Christ when they become 
aduhs." These, and a thousand other questions 
might be asked. But the how and the why is 
not the matter to be settled by us ; here are the 
facts, " he took them in his arms," " he blessed 
them ;" he said, " Of such is the kingdom of 
God." It is very doubtful with me whether 
Mr. B.'s " extreme doubts" on the subject, even 
with the use of his " Lexicon," will invalidate, 
in the minds of my readers, the force of these 
facts. It is hard to reason against facts. 

But suppose, for argument sake, that the 
" kingdom of God" means the kingdom of glory, 
our opponents gain nothing by it ; then the 
children are fit for heaven, and, I suppose, are 
lit for the church on earth. What Mr. B. says 
in his Strictures about ano^els beino^ unfit for a 
place in the gospel church is altogether gratui- 
tous ; — where is it written 1 He admits. Strict., 
p. 8, that " the blood of Jesus may be applied 
to children," fitting them for heaven : and still 
he says, '' they are fitted by an influence that 
never fits men for the gospel kingdom.''^ This 
seems like very strange doctrine. I suppose 
Mr. B. holds the doctrine of original sin, in 
opposition to Pelagius ; if so, infants need an 
application of the blood of Christ, to purify, or 
make them holy ; then the question occurs, 
How is this blood applied ? The Scriptures at- 
tribute the work imiformly to the Holy Spirit : 
hence the angel said, Luke i, 15, of John the 
Baptist, that " he shall be filled with the Holy 



T 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 67 

Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Now, 
candid reader, do you know of any other way 
to fit men for the gospel church, or the kingdom 
of glory, than by an application of " the blood 
of Jesus, through the eternal Spirit ?" We read 
of but one song among the redeemed in heaven ; 
they all were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, 
and all sin? one sonoj. 

Infants, who are in a state of justification, 
Rom. V, 18, consequently not guilty, having 
never committed actual or personal transgres- 
sion, are made the model for adults : " Except 
ye be converted, and become as little children ;" 
" whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
God, as a little child," &c. Yet our Baptist 
friends admit the adults, who are formed on the 
model, and reject the children, who are the model 
by which the qualifications of the adult are set 
forth. Strange ! passing strange ! 

We shall be told, however, '^ they were not 
baptized, but blessed ;" where is the proof? 
" They were to be received in the name of 
Christ." " They were not to be forbidden to 
come to him." The Baptists say, all were to 
come to him in his church by baptism. I there- 
fore infer they were baptized, and I have just 
as much evidence of the baptism of those chil- 
dren as any Baptist can find in the New Testa- 
ment of the baptism of St. Peter and St. John ; 
for I have never seen any evidence that Christ 
ever applied water to them bit once, and then 
he only washed their feet. An objector will 
say, But we infer they were baptized. Very 



68 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

good. You will allow me the same liberty. 
/ infei' those childreii were baptized, for surely 
they obtained some grace, when it is said, " he 
blessed themP This is more than can be said 
with truth of many an adult church member. 
See Watson's Exp. on Matt, xix, 13, 14, 

The Epistles were written to the churches, 
and were to be read in the churches ; and chil- 
dren — young children — are addressed, and ap- 
propriate instruction given them, equally with 
fathers, wives, servants, &c. We shall be told 
they were not " unconscious babes." They 
were so young that they were " yet to be 
brought up,^' and were not to be ^' provoked''^ by 
their parents, lest they should be " discouraged." 
They had been " baptized into Christ ;" — into 
his kingdom as subjects, — into his school as 
scholars, or disciples, — and were to " obey their 
parents in the Lord in all things^^ and to be 
'' brought up in the instruction and discipline 
of the Lord." Surely such were not adult be- 
lievers. When was a Baptist church seen that 
had persons in it that needed bringing up ? 

There is no precedent in Scripture with re- 
gard to the particular age at which the ordinance 
ought to be given, except one. That is the case 
of Jesus, " who began to be about thirty years 
of age." We suppose " our friends," who talk 
so much of " following Jesus down to Jordan," 
and " fulfilling all righteousness," would hardly 
recommend all persons to defer baptism until 
the age of thirty — although this is a part of 
Christ's example. More of this hereafter. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 69 

When they tell ns we cannot find the word 
" infant" in connection with baptism in the 
Scriptures, and therefore have no " Thus saith 
the Lord" for it — " no Scripture precedent" — I 
answer, They cannot find the words boy, girl, 
old man, young man, yet they occasionally 
baptize some of each. This is very much like 
a man rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, be- 
cause he does not find the loord Trinity in the 
Scriptures. 

I shall produce one more evidence from the 
Scriptures, 1 Cor. vii, 14 : '' For the unbelieving 
husband is sanctified by the wife," &c., " else 
were your children unclean ; but now are they 
holy." Mr. B. has given, Sermon, pp. 12, 13, 
a caricature of the argument of Pedobaptists on 
this passage. He says, " Some of them con- 
tend that infants ought to be baptized, because 
they are pure, and others contend that they need 
it because they are impure ;" and then gravely 
says, " but I cannot see the force of the argu- 
ment." What argument ? If he had taken as 
much pains to present the Pedobaptist view of 
the passage as he has to give the fanciful and 
far-fetched exposition of the Rev. Mr. Dagg, 
the reader might have had some idea of the 
argument for infant baptism drawn from the 
passage. 

In many places in the Scriptures (Exod. xix, 
6; Lev. x, 10 ; 1 Chron. xxii, 19; 2 Chron. 
xxiii, 6 ; Ezek. xxii, 26 ; Luke ii, 23 ; Acts x, 
28, and xi, 8, 9 ; Heb. ix, 13) the word "holy" 
is applied to things or persons, separated from 



70 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

common, and devoted to religious uses ; sepa- 
rated from the world and devoted to God : and 
is often applied to the visible church, under 
different dispensations. Hence the Jews are 
called a •• holy people r and Peter calls the 
Christian church '* a holy nation.'' They were 
so, profession all I/, beinsf '* separated from the 
world to God :'' ahhough each individual mem- 
ber was not " intrinsically holyP 

While our opponents say that the word 
" holy," as applied to the children in the text, 
signifies that they were " legitimate'' children, 
they do not pretend to furnish a single text from 
the Scriptures where the word has that sense ; 
while they expect us to take their interpretation 
without proof, the good !Mr. Baxter has shown, 
(Baxter's Inf. Ch. Membership.) that in near 
six hundred places in the Bible, the word has 
the sense which I have given it above, i. e., " a 
separation to GodP This eWdence, I should 
think, must be decisive with all who do not 
interpret Scripture by a creed, but are content 
to take their creed out of the Scriptures. If, 
then, the children of Christians are "holy," 
i. e., " separated to God," are they separated to 
God in the church, or out of it ? If it is replied, 
They are separated to him in the church; then 
they must be church members, and that is what 
we wish to prove : if, on the other hand, it be 
replied. They are *' separated to God" in the 
world ; then truly they present an anomalous 
case, they are truly ''peculiar." They do not 
belong to the church, thev do not belon? to the 



\ 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 

world. " The church is in Christ ;" — " the 
world lieth in the wicked one," but those hap- 
less children are in neither ; they neither be- 
long to God nor the devil ! 

If they are not ** unclean" but ^' holy," the 
apostle clearly establishes, or asserts, a distinc- 
tion between the children of heathens, who I 
were unclean, and devoted to heathen gods, 
and the children of professing Christians, which 
were separated and devoted to God. " The 
unbelieving husband (being one flesh with the 
believing wife) is sanctified by the wife," and 
vice versa; so that the children are not "un- 
clean," or left in a heathen state, but " separated 
to God" with the believing parent. I am sup- 
ported in this opinion by the learned Whitby. 
His language is — " And though one of the pa- 
rents be still a heathen, yet is the denomination 
to be taken from the better, and so their off- 
spring^ are to be esteemed, not as heathens, 
i. e., unclean, but holy, as all Christians by 
denomination are." See Whitby on the place. 
Clemens Alexandrinus held the same view of 
this passage. " Hence, then," says Whitby, 
" the argument for infant baptism runs thus : 
If the holy seed among the Jews was therefore 
to be circumcised, and be made federally holy, 
by receiving the sign of the covenant, and 
being admitted into the number of God's * holy 
people,' because they were born in sanctity, 
or were seminally holy ; for the root being holy, 
so are the branches also; then, by like reason, 
the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted 



72 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian 

covenant.^ 

What merit " Mr. Dagg's Exposition^' may 
possess as a whole, I am unprepared to say, 
but the specimen Mr. B. has given of it surely 
does not present it in a very favourable light. 
Hear him : " If a believing husband must leave 
his wife because she is an unbeliever, for the 
same reason your offspring must be cast off; 
for they would, upon the principle herein in- 
volved, be as unclean, on account of unbelief ^ to 
the believing parents, as an unbelieving husband 
or wife would be to the other who is a believer.'* 
But perhaps Mr. B. may bring a Lexicon to 
prove that the term translated " children" means 
" posterity." Certainly it does, and so includes 
the youngest infants. Now, although Mr. D. 
and Mr. B. both talk about infants or children 
" being in unbelief^'' one says, they are " unclean 
on account of unbelief," the other says, '' infants 
are baptized in unbelief." I should like those 
gentlemen to furnish one single text of Scripture 
where either children or infants have unbelief 
attributed to them, or are said to be " in un- 
belief." There is a manifest discrepancy, not 
to say a flat contradiction, in the language used 
by Mr. B. in his Strictures, p. 10, and in his 
Sermon, pp. 7 and 26. When reasoning, in the 
Strictures, on the salvation of infants, he says, 
*' The gospel cannot condemn them, because 
they cannot be guilty of the sin of unbelief ^ In 
his sermon, when he wants to exclude them 
from the rite of baptism, he says, " I will engage 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 73 

to prove, my hearers, that the commission act- 
ually excludes all unbelievers^ whether unconscious 
infants or unbelieving adults.'^ Again he says, 
" Thousands of believers omit it, (i. e., baptism,) 
because they were baptized while in unbelief! /" 
I think this needs a salvo ; there is, at least, '* a 
glorious uncertainty^^ about it. 

We have seen, from the evidence produced 
above, that the children of those Corinthians 
were not " unclean," but "holy;" and as no in- 
stance can be given of a person being called 
holy who was not a member of the visible 
church of God, the inference is undeniable 
that holy infants belonged to the visible church 
of Christ. 

" Having thus established their membership, 
I shall take their baptism for granted^ till our 
Baptist brethren admit people into their churches 
without the ordinance." — D. Isaac, p. 164. 

Mr. B. asks a question on this point, which I 
must say a word in reply to. " Was baptism 
designed for the benefit of holy beings ? The 
commission in that case ought to be read, Go 
ye, &c., and baptize all you find who are holy. 
Upon that plan, all adults would be excluded, 
seeing all adults are sinners." He says. Ser- 
mon, p. 23, " Baptism brings us, after regenera- 
tion, into the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ." 
Are they " regenerated,^^ and yet sinners — " buried 
with Christ in baptism," and yet sinners — " cru- 
cified with Christ, that the body of sin might be 
destroy ed,^^ and yet sirmers? The apostle says, 
" their children were holy ;" and take Mr. B.'s 



74 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

interpretation of the word, and say they were 
holy in the longest, broadest, highest sense of 
that word, even then, I suppose, candid reader, 
you will admit that holiness would furnish as 
valid a reason for ^'haptisrrC'' as ^^ sin,^ especially 
in view of the fact that the holiness of the " holy 
Jesus^^ did not disqualify him for baptism ! ! 

We remark in evidence, further, the antiquity 
of the practice of infant baptism may be consi- 
dered as strong evidence on the subject. If the 
baptism of children was not practised by the 
apostles and by the primitive Christians, when 
and where did the practice commence ? 

To this question Baptist writers generally do 
not attempt to give an answer, because they 
cannot. It is an innovation, say they, not upon 
the circumstances of a sacrament, but upon its 
essential principle. And yet its introduction 
produced no struggle ; was never noticed by 
any general or provincial council ; and excited 
no controversy. This itself is strong presump- 
tive evidence of its early antiquity. 

Our Baptist friends, from time to time, have 
attempted to find its origin. Mr. B. says. Ser- 
mon, p. 27, it was introduced by the Romish 
apostacy, and " calls on all candid Pedobaptist 
Protestants, as they would desire the world to 
be delivered from the abominations of popery, 
to abandon this popish ceremony." This re- 
minds me of the famous argument of some 
people against the doctrines of Christ's divinity, 
and the Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; 
that they ought to be rejected by Protestants, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 75 

because they were a part of the doctrines of 
the Church of Rome. Query : Is this the 
cause why such large bodies of men, who have 
denied infant baptism at different periods, in 
Germany, Poland, &c., have been Socinians?!! 
See Benedict's History of the Baptists, pp. 
172-175. 

I suppose that it is the part of charity and 
candour to " rejoice in the truih,'^^ whether that 
truth be found among Protestants or Catholics — 
with Luther or the pope. Unfortunately for our 
"Baptist friends, however, infant baptism is not 
only found with Luther and the pope, but with 
the Greek Church, that never had any connec- 
tion with the pope, from the earliest periods of 
her history. And if, as the Baptists say, (Be- 
nedict's Hist, of the Baptists, pp. 58-60,) infant 
baptism was introduced in Africa from the first 
to the middle of the third century, confined at 
first to catechised minors, and in about forty 
years decided to be the right of infants by an 
ecclesiastical council, how did it happen that 
there was but little more said on the subject 
until the year 416? And how did it happen 
that although the Vandals overran that part of 
Africa about " the year 429, and the Catholics 
fled into Europe, carrying infant baptism with 
them," " that its entrance into Europe was of a 
later date," and " the first ecclesiastical canon 
in Europe on the subject was" as late as " the 
sixth century?" " And the first imperial law on 
the subject in the eighth century, by the empe- 
ror Charlemagne ?" 



76 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Mr. Judson supposed that infant baptism was 
introduced toward the close of the second cen- 
tury — while Mr. Broaddus considers it a relic 
of popery; although popery did not exist, as 
such, until after the sixth century. This is 
only a difference of opinion between two Bap- 
tist preachers, each rejecting infant baptism ; 
one dating its origin only four hundred years 
later than the other. No marvel that we should 
differ from them, when they cannot agree 
among themselves, on the origin of so great an 
innovation upon '-''gospel order T 

Now we would ask Mr. Benedict, and our 
Baptist friends, where were the Baptist churches 
all this time? The descendants of "their an- 
cient brother," John the Baptist ; were there 
none found faithful among the primitive Chris- 
tians, to utter the voice of warning on the sub- 
ject of this great innovation ? There was none 
found, candid reader, to object, except Tertul- 
lian, and he objected as much to the baptism 
of " unmarried believers" as he did to infants ; 
and admitted the validity of " infant baptism" 
where there was danger of death. Of course, 
then, he was not a Baptist. 

Mr. Benedict says. History, page 92, " We 
date the origin of our sentiments, and the be- 
ginning of our denomination, about the year of 
our Lord 29 or 30 ; for at that period John the 
Baptist began to immerse professed believers 
in Jordan and Enon, and to prepare the way for 
the coming of the Lord's anointed, and for the 
setting up of his kingdom." It is generally 



MODE OP BAPTISM. 77 

admitted that John baptized hundreds of thou- 
sands. If this was the origin of the Baptist 
denomination, what became of all those thou- 
sands for about twelve hundred years, that there 
was none found to demur at infant baptism ? ! 
Surely they could not have been in existence 
in Christendom, or they did not look upon the 
baptism of " unconscious babes" in the same 
light that modern Baptists do ; one or the other 
of these conclusions we think inevitably true. 
Mr. Broaddus, Sermon, pp. 21, 22, attempts to 
dispose of the '' testimony of the fathers" in a 
very summary manner ; and in support of his 
views quotes Dr. Hill. Now if the " testimony 
of the fathers" having been in the keeping of 
the Church of Rome is sufficient reason, as 
those gentlemen suppose, why it should be 
rejected, I would ask, if the infidel might not 
urge the same reason against his receiving the 
New Testament Scriptures 1 The classing 
" infant baptism" with " infant communion," 
transubstantiation, &c., is altogether gratuitous. 
It stands on different grounds. 

Let us hear on this subject the sentiment of 
the intelligent and candid Baptist writer, Dr. 
Gale. He says, " I will grant it is probable, 
that what all or most of the churches practised 
immediately after the apostles' times had been 
appointed or practised by the apostles them- 
selves ; for it is hardly to be imagined that any 
considerable body of these ancient Christians, 
and much less that the whole, should so soon 
deviate from the customs and injunctions of 



78 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

their venerable founders, whose authority they 
held so sacred. New opinions or practices are 
usually introduced by degrees, and not without 
opposition. Therefore, in regard to baptism, a 
thing of such universal concern and daily prac- 
tice, I allow it to be very prohahle that the pri- 
mitive churches kept to the apostolic pattern. 
I verily believe that the primitive church main- 
tained, in this case, an exact conformity to the 
practice of the apostles, which, doubtless, agreed 
entirely with Christ's institutions." — See Gale's 
Reflections on Wall, page 398. 

I shall adduce, now^, two or three testimonies 
from the fathers, to show^ what was the practice 
of the primitive church. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote in the second cen- 
tury, speaks of some who were then sixty or 
seventy years old, " who were made disciples" 
or members "in their infancyT But Mr. B., 
referring to his Lexicon, says. Strictures, p. 7, 
the word rendered " infant" may be rendered 
youth. I shall not stop here to dispute about 
this word. Irenseus, who wrote within sixty- 
seven years of the apostolic times, says, 
"Christ came to save all persons by himself; 
all, I mean, who by him are baptized unto God ; 
infants and little ones, and children and youths." 
— Dr. Wall, Inf. Bap., vol. i, ch. 3. He is said 
to have been personally acquainted wath Foly- 
carp, a disciple of St. John, and had heard him 
preach. 

Origen, of the Greek Church, who was a 
man of great learning, and acquainted extenr 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 79 

sively with the church, and who had good op- 
portunity to know the practice of the apostles, 
as his great grandfather was a Christian, and 
cotemporary with the apostles, says, '' Infants, 
by the usage of the church, are baptized. The 
church had a tradition, ,or command, from the 
apostles, to give baptism to infants T — Wall's 
Defence, pp. 372, 383 ; Dr. Doddridge's Lect., 
p. 9. Mr. Judson tried in vain to overturn this 
testimony. 

Cyprian, and the council of Carthage, in the 
year 253, where sixty-six bishops met, not to 
decide whether infants were to be baptized, 
but whether they might be baptized before the 
eighth day ; and they were unanimously of opi- 
nion, " that they {i?ifants) might be baptized as 
soon as they were born." — Cyprian, epist. 66. 
Lord Chancellor King, in his account of the 
primitive church, remarks, " Here, then, is a 
synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as 
formal as can possibly be expected, which is 
of more weight than the private judgment of a 
father, and more authentic ; as he might give 
his own opinion only, but this (the decision of 
a synod) denotes the common practice and usage 
of the whole church^ — Inquiry into the Consti- 
tution, (fee, part ii, ch. 3. 

Pelagius maintained infant baptism, although 
the practice made against his heresy. He de- 
nied original sin — and was the author of Avhat 
is called Pelagianism. He lived three hundred 
years after the apostles. He says, " Men slan- 
der me, as if I ctenied the sacrament of baptism 



80 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

to infants. I never heard of any, not even the 
most impious heretic, who denied baptism to in- 
fants."— Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bapt., p. 62. 

This man had every inducement to deny 
infant baptism, if he could have found a shadow 
of eA'idence to have borne him out. The usage 
of the church in this respect was a standing, 
irrefragable argument against his heresy. 

So much for the " testimony of the fathers." 
You can judge, candid reader, whether it is to 
be passed over as nothing worth, in view of the 
fact, that those who '^ deny infant baptism" have 
no evidence to put in bar. 

The Christian church was early divided in 
sentiment, on doctrine, and split into sects, who 
ever kept upon each other a watchful eye ; and 
the " pattern" could not have been so altered as 
to admit the universal prevalence of such an 
innovation, without an alarm being given. 

Our Baptist friends try to make out their re- 
lationship with the Waldenses, those witnesses 
for the truth in the dark ages. I confess I was 
a little amused at the attempt of Mr. Benedict, 
in his History, on this subject. 

That Peter de Bruis, and his followers, (who 
were only a small fraction of the people called' 
Waldenses,) did deny infant baptism is unde- 
niable, but on different grounds from our Baptist 
friends. This man arose in France about twelve 
hundred years after Christ, and held that infants 
could not be saved, and therefore ought not to he 
baptized, " as they could not work out their own 
salvation." 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 81 

They held about the same proportion to the 
great body of the Waldenses, who held infant 
baptism, as the " Seventh-day" Baptists do to 
the great body of the Baptists, who hold " the 
Lord's day" as the sabbath. If I were to re- 
port that the Baptists in the United States keep 
the " seventh day" as their sabbath, I should 
be about as near right as Baptist writers are 
when they say that the Waldenses *' denied 
infant baptism," for those who have denied it 
among them have been as about one to thirty, — 
Dr, Miller on Baptism, pp. 40-43. 

In an expose of the views of the Waldenses, 
made as early as the twelfth century, although 
they oppose many errors of the Romish Church 
— such as praying to saints, purgatory, masses, 
&c., and say that there are but two sacraments, 
baptism and the Lord^s supper — yet they utter 
not one word against " infant baptism." — Wat- 
son's Diet., art. Waldenses. They had bishops 
among them ; *^ and after the opening of the 
reformation under Luther, the Waldenses sought 
intercourse with the reformed churches of Ge- 
neva and France; held communion with them; 
received ministers from them ; acknowledged them 
as brethren in the Lord, &c. Now it is well 
known that those churches held infant baptism ; 
and this fact alone we think sufficient to show 
that those pious people were Pedobaptists." — 
Dr. Miller, p. 43. 

Why should those who deny infant baptism 
wish to prove that the Waldenses were their 
predecessors or ancestors ? If they could make 
6 



82 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

this out, they would then be nine hundred years 
from the days of John the Baptist ; for Mr. Be- 
nedict, in his History, can furnish no certain 
evidence that the Waldenses had any existence 
earlier than the ninth century. Let our op- 
posing brethren give the world a " Thus saith 
the Lord" for rejecting infants, and then there 
is an end to the controversy. No doubt, from 
the earliest history of the Waldenses, Albi- 
genses, &;c., there was a difference of opinion 
among them on many points, as there is now 
among different denominations of Christians, 
not excepting the Baptists. There may have 
been some, besides the followers of Peter de 
Bruis, who differed with the great body of their 
brethren, for some reason, about infant baptism ; 
but surely this does not justify an effort to make 
out that that people, as a people, were not Pedo- 
baptists. I know a number of Baptists who are 
in favour of free comjnunion, and some who 
communed v/ith Christians of other denomina- 
tions, until they endangered their membership 
in their own church thereby ; and I might show 
from the works of that celebrated man, John 
Bunyan, that he admitted members to his com- 
munion who had been baptized in infancy, and 
had never received what is called " believers' 
baptism." — Bunyan's Works, vol. ii, pp. 2 16-2 19. 
But would it be fair and honourable in me to 
draw a general conclusion from these particular 
cases 1 and then say, '* The Baptists in Virginia 
are in favour of free communion ; and the Bap- 
tists in Europe, in the days of Bunyan, admitted 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 

persons to church fellowship without believers' 
baptism ?" Surely nothing would be more un- 
fair. 

We have seen, from historical evidence, that 
the church, for twelve hundred years, (not to 
say for fifteen hundred and twenty-two years,) 
alw^ays held infant baptism, and during all that 
time none ever rejected it, on any such grounds 
as are noio urged hy our Baptist brethren. He 
who can, in view of all this evidence, persist in 
his opposition to the baptism of children, must, 
it appears to me, be prepared to make a sacrifice 
of all historical evidence, at the altar of a pre- 
judice that is both deaf and blind ; too deaf to 
hear the voice of reason, and too blind to see 
the light of truth. This language is strong ; 
because it is the result of strong conviction on 
my own mind. I have long since learned, that 
where men can laugh, and sneer, at the consci- 
entious conduct of people as pious as themselves, 
because they choose to dedicate their children 
to God in baptism ; and can make sport with 
the feelings of a mother, who wishes to have 
her child given to God in his ordinance before 
it dies ; (Mr, B.'s Sermon, p. 26 ;) — I say I have 
long since learned, that with such (at least) no 
other language will make any impression. You 
had as well attempt to " draw out leviathan 
with a hook," Job xli. Such, in the language 
of St. Paul, (Titus i, 13,) need to be " rebuked 
sharply ;" and though they may not be induced 
to be " sound in faith^'* they may, perhaps, be 
taught to treat with Christian courtesy those 



84 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

who, as Bunyan says, " may not see it their 
duty to jump vnth tliemP A candid Baptist 
friend once said to me, " It would not do for us 
to admit infant baptism." " Why ?" said I. His 
reply was, " We would be like farmers who cut 
orT their corn while it is young." " Thank you 
for your candour," was my reply. " You think 
that if all the children were baptized in infancy, 
there would be no corn gathered into the Baptist 
garner in adult age." I have often wondered 
why the baptism of children should so disturb 
our "differing brethren." But I perceive, in 
Mr. B.'s Sermon, p. 26, a little light on this 
point : he says, " It is a "positive evilP Why 
so ? Look, reader, lower down on the same 
page, and you will see. Because by it " thou- 
sands who are brought to the knowledge of the 
truth" are led to refuse "believers' baptism." 
This, to be sure, is a sore evil; but, happily, 
not so much to the convert as to those who 
would proselyte him, by teazing him about 
" believers' baptism." A man goes on in sin, 
his baptized neighbour never reproves him or 
talks seriously to him about the " salvation" of 
his precious soul ; he goes to a Pedobaptist 
meeting ; is awakened and converted to God — 
returns home — soon has a visit from his neigh- 
bour. He wonders what has brought his friend 
so early to see him. 

Neighhour. I wish to have a little conversa- 
tion with you. 

Convert. Certainly. 

Neighbour. I was pleased to hear that you 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 85 

have '' found grace^- at the meeting; I wish 

you to tell me your experience. 

The convert proceeds to detail his experience. 

Neighhour. " Very good;'* " « gospel experi- 
rience^'' " very much like my own ;" " now all you 
want is one thingT 

Convert. Pray, neighbour, what is that? I 
am happy in God ; " believing, I rejoice with 
joy unspeakable." I am not conscious of want- 
ing any thing but " more graceP What do you 
mean ? 

Neighbour. Why — why — the " Master says," 
" Believe and he haptized.^''^ 

Convert. O, is that what you mean? On that 
subject I haA^e no concern. I was baptized in 
infancy; and I now have the thing signified, 
i. e., " the renewing of the Holy Ghost," — ^just 
as the Jewish children received the seal of the 
covenant in childhood, and at adult age became 
** circumcised in heart." 

Neighbour. Well, but you must obey the 
" commandment." 

Convert. Neighbour, my parents were Chris- 
tians, and you cannot show me a commandment, 
or a precedent, for baptizing the children of 
Christian parents at adult age. And moreover, 
I cannot join a church whose confession of faith 
I do not believe ; and I could not receive be- 
lievers' baptism, if I wished it, without joining 
your church. 

* I cannot find those words in this form in the New- 
Testament. They remind me of the old coloured man's 
text — '^ The Lord says, Be baptized in much water ^ 



86 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Neighbour. Why, friend, as for the confession 
of faith, you iieed not mind that^ for one of our 
elders said, " He would not give the confession 
of faith room in his saddle-bags." And again, 
we hold nearly the same doctrines those do 
among whom you found the Lord ; as you may 
find from our preaching. We may differ a little 
about falling from grace ; but that is not much, 
you know." 

Convert. Well, friend, I cannot judge so much 
what men believe in our day from their preaching 
as from their confessions of faith. 

Neighbour. I wish you well, neighbour. Fare- 
well. 

Convert. I wish you the same ; for I trust, as 
St. Paul says, " we have been both baptized by 
one Spirit into Christ.''^ 

They part, and he who would have " com- 
passed sea and land" to make a proselyte of his 
neighbour, says, as he walks mournfully home, 
filled loith disappointment and chagrin, "It is a 
POSITIVE evil" that my neighbour was baptized 
in infancy. 

We have seen, candid reader, in the course 
of this argument, 

1. God has but one church, and never had 
more. Christ was the angel that was with the 
church " in the wilderness, and they tempted 
Christ;' 1 Cor. x, 9. 

2. In that church, the right of infants to mem- 
bership was admitted for two thousand years. 

3. That right never was done away by any 
" statute of repeal." 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 87 

4. The only two general covenants that God 
ever made with man, he made with Adam in 
the garden of Eden,* — the covenant of 
WORKS, which was broken ; and the covenant 
of grace in Christ. 

5. This covenant of grace was the same 
that was confirmed to Abraham, (four hundred 
and thirty years before the giving of the law,) 
of which circumcision was then made the seal 
and sign, 

6. This covenant recognised the right of 
children to membership, and admitted them to 
the sign of the covenant. 

7. This covenant was fully developed under 
the gospel dispensation, when Christ became 
visibly " the minister of the covenant." 

8. Under the gospel, the children of the Jews 
were not rejected, because none were broken 
off from " the true olive," except for " unbelief," 
of which Jewish infants were incapable, 

9. Christ encouraged the reception of chil- 
dren in his name, and blessed them; and put no 
clause in the commission of the apostles, to 
change the order which had existed, with regard 
to children, for thousands of years, 

10. They all, being Jews, would so under- 
stand the commission as to admit the children j 
unless forbidden so to do, 

11. The baptism of families was practised 
in the days of the apostles, and it is unreason- 

* I am happy to find this view borne out by the old Phi- 
ladelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, printed by Benjamin 
Franklin in 1742, pp. 72-74. 



88 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

able to suppose there were no infants among 
them. 

12. The church practised it for at least twelve 
hundred years without opposition, except from 
Tertullian and the Petrobrusians ; who opposed 
it on different grounds from those on wliich our 
Baptist friends oppose it. 

13. If it had been an innovation upon " gospel 
order," or a departure from the " original pat- 
tern^^ some Baptist, surely, would have raised 
his voice against it, in twelve centuries. An 
innovation of the kind could not have been in- 
troduced without a spirited controversy ; the 
existence of which controversy no Baptist has 
ever been able to show. 

14. And finally, that the Waldenses, those 
opposers of the corruptions of the Romish 
Church, were generally Pedobaptists. 

In concluding this part of the general argu- 
ment, we say. He who takes the Baptist view 
of this subject has to suppose, on the contrary, 
that when the gospel dispensation was opened, 
a dispensation of larger promises and increased 
privileges and liberality, the right of infants to 
membership was taken away ; and that this 
took place without one hint or reason being 
given for it ; without any single mention of it 
in the apostolic wrhings. Nay, that instead of 
such notice and explanation, a mode of expres- 
sion was adopted under the " new economy ^^^ simi- 
lar to that used before ; calculated to convey the 
idea that parents and children stood in their old 
relation, notwithstanding the supposed painful 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 89 

change. That parents, Christian parents, saw 
their children rejected, who always had seen 
them admitted while they were Jews ; and yet 
no murmur was heard, no explanation asked. 
Is this credible 1 This silence " pleads trumpet 
tongued" against the views of our Baptist friends, 
and has the weight of a hundred arguments for 
infant baptism. 

The argument, therefore, is reduced to this : 
" If infant baptism is an innovation, it confess- 
edly entered the church very soon after the 
canon of Scripture closed ;" and in a few years 
more, " without a single precept to warrant, or 
a single example to encourage it ; yea, with the 
well known practice of the apostles, and of all 
the churches they ever planted, directly, openly, 
palpably against it ; under all these disadvan- 
tages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the 
face of the whole earth, there was not a church 
found where it was not performed." Yea, more ; 
it entered the church, it prevailed, it became 
universal, without a whisper of opposition, without 
a word of dispute. All parties in the eastern 
church, and all parties in the western church, 
confederating to connive at the error, to blot out 
every trace of it from the page of history, and 
never to utter a single word from which it could 
he discovered that they had d.eparted from the 
gospel rule ; to that man who believes this, what 
can be incredible ? Such, surely, would make 
good disciples of the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion. For such, we think, could easily take 
another step ; and, denying the evidence of their 



90 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

senses, swallow a wafer for the real body and 
blood of Christ. 

A few observations more in reply to the 
question, Who are the proper subjects of bap- 
tism ? and we shall close this part of the gene- 
ral argument. 

We readily admit that believers, in the fullest 
sense of that word, are proper subjects, and that 
the possession of the highest religious experi- 
ence furnishes no bar to the reception of the 
outward sign. In reading the Acts of the 
Apostles, it will be seen that the ordinance 
was given both to those that had, and to- those 
tJiat had not, received the Holy Ghost. On the 
day of Pentecost, when three thousand inquired 
what they must do, Peter said, ^* Repent and be 
baptized every one of you, fo?' the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." By what they saw and heard, espe- 
cially the gift of tongues, by which each was 
enabled to hear the wonderful works of God in 
the language in which each was born, they 
were convinced of the Messiahship of Christ, 
and saw their own guilt and danger, and in- 
quired of the apostles the way of escape. We 
presume it v^ill not be said that thei/ had a 
Christian experience, in the usual sense of that 
phrase. See Acts ii. 

In the eighth chapter of Acts we find re- 
corded the case of the Samaritans, who heard 
Philip "preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ ; 
and when they saw the miracles which he 



I 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 91 

wrouglit, they believed his preaching upon the 
evidence of those miracles, and ' were baptized, 
both men and women.'" And it was not mitil 
" the apostles at Jerusalem had heard that Sa- 
maria had received the word of God," and had 
sent down Peter and John, who laid their hands 
on them and prayed, that the Holy Ghost came 
on them. Now if our Baptist friends should 
say, that what they received was not the ordi- 
nary, but the extraordinary gift of the Spirit of 
God, for the purpose of speaking with tongues, 
&c., they must say it upon their own responsi- 
bility, for there is not a shadow of evidence of 
it in the text. And if they should still persist 
in saying that they were genuine converts, expe- 
rienced believers, before Peter and John came to 
them, then they admit that a man may be an 
experienced Christian without the Holy Ghost ; 
and if one man, or many, (as in this case), then 
all might, and the conclusion would be, there is 
no need of the Holy Ghost in constituting men 
real believers, genuine converts. For Luke 
says, verses 15, 16, "Who, when they were 
come down, prayed for them, that they might 
receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was 
fallen upon none of them ; only they were hap- 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then 
laid they their hands on them, and they received 
the Holy Ghost." 

But if our Baptist friends should still say that 
these people had a religious experience before 
they were baptized, then they throw themselves 
into another dilemma ; for what is said of their 



92 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

religion is said also of Simon's : in verse 13 it 
is said, '' Then Simon himself believed also; and 
when he was baptized," &c. Did Simon obtain 
the grace of evangelical faith before baptism 1 
Then he must have fallen from grace, and fallen 
foully too ; for Peter said to him, verses 21, 23, 
*' Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter;" 
" Thou art in the gall of hittevness^^ 

Then what becomes of the favourite doctrine, 
" once in grace, always in grace ?" But perhaps 
I shall be told, Simon Magus never had any 
grace ; then he got an experience without grace, 
or, if you like it better, he was baptized without 
grace, and if he was, so were the rest, for what 
is said of their faith is said of his. I may be 
told further, Simon was a reprobate, and never 
had any thing more than a common call and 
common gTace. Then Philip baptized a repro- 
hate. And even after he had offered to buy the 
Holy Ghost with money, Peter exhorted him 
to repentance and prayer, that he might be for- 
given. Query: If Simon had given heed to 
Peter's exhortation, (and there is some proof 
that he did, verse 24, for he asked an interest 
in the apostle's prayers,) and had prayed, re- 
pented, and become a genuine believer, would our 
Baptist brethren have thought it necessary to 
re-baptize Simon ? If they apply the same rea- 
soning to adults that they do to children, in ex- 
plaining the commission, or what Mr. Campbell 
calls " the law of baptism," namely, that baptism 
must always follow faith, and not go before it, 
in any case, as the commission says, " He that 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 93 

believeth and is baptized ;" — did Simon's want 
of evangelical faith vitiate, or render Ai,? baptism 
a nullity? If it did, then he ought to have been 
re-baptized upon his repentance ; if it did not, 
then I cannot see how the baptism of an infant 
is rendered a nullity, by its unbelief, when at 
adult age. 

The argument attempted to be drawn from 
the order of the words in the commission is 
entirely sophistical. As much so as if I were 
to say, that because " John the Baptist baptized 
in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of 
repentance," therefore John always baptized the 
people Jirst, and preached the baptism of re- 
pentance to them afterward. 

Having digressed thus far, I remark, this case 
of Simon's is a very perplexing case, especially 
to all Calvinist Baptists, for, when examined, 
it is found to endanger one of two of their 
favourite opinions. From both horns of the 
dilemma it is impossible to escape. Either 
Si7non had no grace and was baptized without an 
experience, or he had grace vohen baptized, and 
afterward so utterly lost it, that he had no part 
or lot in the matter. They can take, candid 
reader, just which side of the question, just that 
horn of this dilemma that may suit them best. 
It is common, of two evils, for men in self-love 
to choose the least ; and as grace is more valu- 
able than water, even " much water,^^ I suppose 
they will cling to the consolation of the Lord's 
dear people, " where he begins a work of grace, 
he always carries it on to the end," and will 



94 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

suppose that Philip, some how or other, (-'al- 
though he was full of wisdom and of the Holy 
Ghost,") made a mistake, and baptized an im- 
proper candidate in that particular case. 

The true state of the case seems to have 
been this : Philip entered Samaria, commenced 
preaching Christ, and, to confirm his doctrine, 
began to "heal the lame," "to cure the palsied," 
and to cast out unclean spirits, that cried with a 
loud voice as they came out of those who were 
possessed of them. Simon and the Samaritans 
heard his message, saw the miracles, were con- 
vinced that the message was true, were willing 
to enter the school of Christ as disciples, by 
baptism, that they might be made better ac- 
quainted with this new religion. 

Christianity was established by miracle, and 
those who gave it credence in the early part of 
its history rested their faith or conviction of its 
truth, not so much upon a thorough knowledge 
of its peculiar doctrines, as upon the evidence 
brought home to their minds through the me- 
dium of their senses ; and those senses were 
powerfully addressed by the miracles of our 
Lord and his apostles. So ignorant were the 
apostles themselves of the peculiar doctrines of 
Christianity, that up to the period of the Saviour's 
crucifixion, " they wondered v/hat the rising 
from the dead should mean." Eloquent /Vpollos 
himself knew so little of the peculiarities of 
Christianity, (even after he had convinced the 
Jews that Jesus was Christ,) that it was neces- 
sary a plain mechanic and his wife should teach 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 95 

him the way of the Lord " more perfectly.''^ And 
so ignorant were the twelve disciples, found by 
Paul at Ephesus, that they knew not that there 
was any Holy Ghost. See Acts, ch. xix. And 
those disciples received the Christian baptism 
from the hands of the apostles, in addition to 
the baptism of John, which they had previously 
received ; and when they had received water 
baptism in the name of Jesus, and Paul had 
laid his hands on them, " the Holy Ghost came 
on them." 

The case of Saul of Tarsus, as found in the 
Acts, ch. xxii, is in point. He was exhorted by 
Ananias to " arise and be baptized and wash 
away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
To this penitent sinner he said, " Why tarriest 
thou ? arise and be baptized." It would not look 
well to fly in the face of the text, and say that 
his sins were washed away before he was ad- 
mitted to the ordinance. 

The Ethiopian eunuch is the only person that 
we find in the Acts professing to believe with 
the heart unto righteousness, in order to bap- 
tism. And his faith seems to have had refer- • 
ence to one point alone ; he said to Philip, " I 
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
He heard but one sermon, was in company with 
Philip perhaps one hour, and, ere they parted, 
Philip made a disciple of him by baptism. 

It is true that Cornelius, and those in his 
house. Acts, ch. x, did receive the Holy Ghost 
while Peter was speaking the word, and re- 
ceived Christian baptism subsequently ; but the 



96 OBLIGATIOxV, SUBJECTS, AND 

reader will observe that this was a peculiar 
case ; it was the opening of the gospel dispen- 
sation to the Gentiles ; when Peter, with the 
keys which Christ gave him, was to " open the 
kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles," as he had 
done previously to the Jews. And the same 
reason that made it necessary to show Peter a 
vision to induce him to go to Cornelius, made it 
necessary to send upon those Gentiles the Holy 
Ghost prior to baptism ; and, by examining the 
passage, you may observe that the six brethren 
who came from Joppa with Peter were asto- 
nished when they observed that God had given 
the Gentiles the Holy Ghost. " Then said 
Peter, who can forbid water ?" &c. When the 
news of this visit reached Jerusalem, they of 
the circumcision contended with Peter ; and 
he, in making his defence, adduces this circum- 
stance as his vindication : " While I was speak- 
ing, the Holy Ghost came on them^'' &c., " and 
what was I that I could withstand God ?" 

These, doubtless, had a religious experience, 
in the fullest sense of the word ; but it will ap- 
pear evident, we think, to all who examine the 
gospels and the Acts, that the ordinance was 
ne^^er delayed for the want of an experience of 
grace. In almost every case, both Christ and 
his apostles gave the ordinance to all without 
exception, and without delay ^ who applied to 
them, and were willing to assume the respon- 
sibilities of discipleship. Hence we find in 
John vi, 60, 66, " Many, therefore, of his dis- 
ciples, when they had heard this, said, This is 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 97 

a hard saying, who can bear it ? Sic. And 
Jesus said, Doth this offend you ? But there 
are some of you that believe not. For Jesus 
knew from the beginning who they were that 
believed not, and who should betray him." 

Now, here wee many disciples^ who, of course, 
were baptized persons, that did not believe. And 
we are told that '^ Jesus knew from the beginning^'' 
that they believed not. They therefore never 
had believed ; and consequently were not be- 
lievers at the time of their baptism. And they 
never had faith afterward; for we read, ''they 
went back and walked no more with him^ 

In further proof, it may be observed, that of 
all the thousands that Christ baptized before his 
death from "Jerusalem and the region round 
about," of them, on the day of Pentecost, there 
were to be found but one hundred and twenty 
disciples, until the conversion of the three thou- 
sand. Where were they? Had so many thou- 
sand true believers, with one consent, made 
shipwreck of faith ? No, reader ; they had been 
struck with the splendour of his miracles, they 
offered themselves as disciples, were entered 
into his school by baptism ; but, disliking after- 
ward his spiritual teachings, and the simplicity 
of his religion, they ''went backr It is much 
easier to enter the church of Christ as disciples 
by baptism, than to perform those solemn, spi- 
ritual, and important duties to which we are 
introduced by taking this badge of discipleship. 

From what we have written above, it will be 
gathered that we consider all as fit subjects for 
7 



98 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

baptism who credit the gospel message, are 
willing to receive Christ as their Saviour, and 
assume the responsibilities of Christianity. I 
was informed lately by a minister of the old 
Baptist Church, that a certain Dr. T., who, 
I am told, is one of Mr. Campbell's preachers, 
has been engaged lately re-baptizing the mem- 
bers of the old Baptist Church, who, years ago, 
received what is called " believers' ba-ptismP 
They received believers' baptism before. What 
are they receiving now ? I suppose the doctor 
is baptizing them " for the remission of sins.'' 
Query — Is not this reversing the order of 
Christian experience? or tacitly confessing 
that they were deceived before, and only had 
a false hope ? I presume they repented, be- 
lieved, and were baptized upon an experience 
of grace. And now do they go back ? If they 
were baptized before, according to Mr. C.^s 
" law of baptism.,^^ pi'ay what law are they now 
baptized under ? Has Dr. T., in " expounding 
the ancient gospel" to them, added a supple- 
ment to the law ? This reminds me of the case 
of a member of the Baptist Church, not one 
hundred miles from this, who has received 
baptism three different times. Do men who read 
their Bibles imagine that they find a " Thus 
saith the Lord" for giving Christian baptism to 
any man more than once ? It is trifling with 
God's ordinance, and has as little authority 
from God's w^ord as from common sense. In 
the close, suffer me to repeat the language of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 99 

Dr. A. Clarke : — " The repetition of Christian 
baptism I believe to be profaned 

Let us all who have been solemnly dedicated 
in baptism to God, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, recollect that " we are debtors to keep 
the whole law." And may God, whose we 
are, " send us help from his sanctuary, and 
strengthen us out of Zion," that we may walk 
worthy of our high, holy, and heavenly calling. 

MODE OF baptism. 

On this part of the subject I think Mr. Broad- 
dus's motto or text a very unfortunate one, as he 
cannot show any analogy between the detailed 
directions given to Moses for building the taber- 
nacle, -and the casual or accidental manner in 
which baptism is mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment. For if God had given as specific direc- 
tions for baptizing as he did anciently for mailing 
the tabernacle, it would not have been neces- 
sary for Mr. B. to labour through forty-two pages 
to show the pattern given for baptism. He says, 
Sermon, p. 6, that he selected that motto " as 
suggesting the necessity of a rigid adherence to 
the EXPRESSED will of God, especially in relation 
to institutions,^'' <^c.; and then proceeds to assert 
a fanciful distinction between what he calls 
" moral and positive requirements," and says, 
" The manner of performing a moral obligation 
may be perfectly indifferent ;" but declares it 
is not so with '^ positive institutions." Unfortu- 



100 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

nately for Mr. B., he has not even attempted to 
furnish a single proof from God's word in sup- 
port of this view oi positive institutes and moral 
duties. To be sure he quotes Bishop Hoadley 
in proof. But I cannot perceive that the bishop's 
words sustain Mr. B.'s position. Mr. B. says 
'' positive institutions;'^^ the bishop says '^posi- 
tive duties. '^'^ Now, positive duties 7nay he insti- 
tutions, or they may not. If Mr. B. had been so 
good as to tell where this saying of the bishop's 
is to be found, we should have been better able 
to tell whether the words will bear that kind of 
application. So far as we can perceive, the 
evidence is not to the point, but to be proved. 
Mr. B. says on the same page, " We may ex- 
pect to find the word of God very explicit on 
the subject of positive institutions," and yet his 
distinction is unsupported by a single text of 
Scripture. I enter my dissent from his starting 
position relative to positive institutions, because 
it stands opposed to facts. 1. Circumcision was 
a positive institute; and can any man show any 
detailed explicit direction about the manner of 
performing the rite? 2. The sacrament of the 
Lord's supper is a positive institute. Do the 
Scriptures give specific directions about the 
manner of attending to that ? It was first cele- 
brated in the night, in a reclining posture, with 
unleavened bread, in an upper room, &c., &c. ; 
and yet what intelligent Christian supposes that 
these things are any more than mere circuTJi- 
stances, or that they are necessary to the accept- 
able celebration of that supper ? Do our Baptist 



, MODE OF BAPTISM. 101 

brethren celebrate it at night ? or with unlea- 
vened bread ? And would not Mr. B. himself as 
soon receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper 
on the Lord's day, in the house of God, as on 
Thursday night, in an upper room of a private 
house ? I knov/ there are superstitiolis people 
who regard a mere circumstance in a sacrament 
as a matter of great moment. And so there 
were those of old who thought more of " tithing 
minV than they did of the " love of God^ 

Let our Baptist friends apply their own prac- 
tice with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's 
supper to the principle which Mr. B. lays down 
with regard to ^^ positive institutions^'* and they 
will see a great want of agreement between Ms 
principles and their practice. And say, candid 
reader, is the institution of baptism more im- 
portant than that which represents " his broken 
body" and ''his shed hlood''^ — and shows forth 
the Lord's death till his coming again ? Why, 
then, this insisting on a " pattern" for baptism, 
when no man can show in God's word a ''pat- 
tern^^ for the sacrament of the Lord's supper 1 
Bread and wine are spoken of for the one, and 
water as the element for the observance of the 
other. And although Mr. B. says, p. 27, " The 
word of God knows nothing for baptism but 
immersion ^^^ I as unhesitatingly declare, that the 
word of God speaks of baptism where immer- 
sion was utterly out of the question. Now, 
candid reader, I have just placed my assertion 
alongside of Mr. B.^s, hoping that you will re- 
ceive neither the one nor the other in this matter 



102 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

without proof . The proof I hope to be able to 
give you in the following pages. 

Mr. B. commences on the mode, by finding 
fault with the translators for leaving the Greek 
terms untranslated ; giving them an English 
termination, instead of translating them im- 
77ierse, immersed, immersion, &c. And both in 
the Strictures and Sermon, King James, the 
bishops, and translators, are treated without 
ceremony. 

The impartial reader w^ill judge whether it is 
likely that the king, the bishops, and forty-seven 
translators would form a conspiracy against the 
truth ; and give to the world a translation that 
did not express fully what they believed to be 
the sense of the original term haptizo. I would 
ask Mr. B., Who prevented the Latin and 
French translators from translating the original, 
so far as to favour immersion only ? And why 
he did not furnish evidence that Dr. George 
Campbell, in his translation of the gospels — or 
the great Dutch reformer, Martin Luther, in his 
translation of the Bible — has translated the ori- 
ginal differently from King James's translators ? 
For he says, Sermon, p. 29, that both Dr. Camp- 
bell and Luther held the original term as mean- 
ing immersion or dipping only. To be sure, 
Mr. B. says that Luther calls John the Baptist 
" John the Dipper," and gives what he considers 
the German of Luther's Testament — " Johan- 
nes der Taufer" — which Mr. B. (the translator) 
renders " John the Dipper." Reader, I do not 
pretend to be able to translate German, but I 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 103 

Strongly suspect that this gentleman has hit as 
wide of the truth here, as in making haptizo mean 
immersion only, A friend of mine, who under- 
stands and speaks the German, informs me that 
the English of ''Johannes der Taufer'' is John 
the Baptist ; and that the German for Dipper 
or Immerser is not "'Taufer^'^ but " Tuncker;" 
hence the name of that sect of Christians called 
" Tunckers,^^ or vulgarly " Dunltards^'* who bap- 
tize candidates by dipping them three times. 

The translators, in retaining the original word 
in the translation, only followed what had been 
the general practice ; for, even as far back as 
the second century, the author of the Peshito, 
an old Syriac version of the New Testament, 
the oldest version extant, although the Syriac 
has a word which signifies to plunge, dip, im- 
merse, has never used that word in the transla- 
tion to denote baptism. Prof, Stewart, p. 78. 
Again : that the precise idea of immersion can- 
not apply to baptizing, or that it does not appear 
that the words baptize and baptism would be 
properly rendered by the words immerse, im- 
mersion^ we may safely conclude from the fol- 
lowing consideration :— The earliest Latin trans- 
lators did not find the Greek words properly 
represented by mergo^ immergo, immersio; al- 
though these words properly signified to immerse^ 
immersion, and were commonly so used in the 
Latin language. They saw there was a mean- 
ing to the Greek loord which their word denoting 
immersion did not fairly represent. And this 
was at a time, too. when there were no contro- 



104 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

versies on the subject ; and at a time, too, if we 
believe the Baptists, when every person bap- 
tized was immersed. Yet the Latin translators, 
if the Baptist system be correct, must first have 
left a word untranslated^ for which they had 
terms in every respect corresponding and ap- 
propriate. And secondly, they must have done 
this with the rite of baptism continually before 
their eyes, performed by immersion, on account 
of which they would be the more inexcusable. 
But these things are not so. They found the 
words employed in a ceremonial sense; they 
therefore retained the original words themselves, 
leaving to the institution itself to make known 
its mode. They therefore latinize the Greek 
words, and give us haptizo^ baptisma, haptismus. 
However, for doing so, they had high authority ; 
the authority or example of the Holy Spirit ; 
and that, too, in a similar case. The Hebrew 
word, pesach, is retained by the inspired writers 
of the New Testament, in the Greek word 
pascha. The Latins latinize the same word. — 
Prof. Elliot, pages 81, 82. These cases are 
parallel — one referring to the institute of the 
passover, and the other to the institute of 
baptism. 

But Mr. B. tells us that Dr. Carson, a Baptist 
writer, says that " baptizo, in the whole history 
of the Greek language, has but one meaning. 
It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it 
7i€ver has any other meaning^ — Sermon, p. 28. 
Mark that, candid reader, as I shall, in the 
course of the argument, place John the Bap- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 105 

TTST, St. Peter, and St. Paul, a/Z against this 
Dr. Carson ! ! At present, however, I shall only 
place one doctor against another. Dr. Adam 
Clarke, Commentary, Matt, iii, 6, asks, " Were 
the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain 
hapto and haptizo mean both." " When Greek 
meets Greek, then is the tug of war." As these 
doctors disagree, I shall call in other witnesses 
presently. Perhaps, reader, you are ready to 
ask me, if this is the same Dr. Clarke quoted by 
Mr. B., Strictures, page 15, in support of im- 
mersion, as the exclusive mode ? Yes, identically 
the same. Mr. B., I perceive, has left the doc- 
tor out of his cloud of witnesses, in his sermon. 
I suppose he began to suspect he had not treated 
the doctor very fairly in the first publication. 
But it may be that he may wish to suggest that 
Dr. Clarke was a sprinkler, like the king, bishops, 
and translators, and that his account of the mat- 
ter was influenced by his creed, or practice of 
baptizing. Very good ; and Dr. Carson was a 
dipper — his criticism, no doubt, was influenced 
by his practice in baptizing ; — so in this, at 
least, they are about equal. Which of the 
doctors was the greater scholar, and conse- 
quently best prepared to judge, I shall not at- 
tempt to decide ; I leave that to the reader. 

Dr. Carson, however, has made a concession 
on this subject, which will go a great way in 
destroying the weight of his testimony. While 
he contends that haptizo always signifies to im- 
merse, he acknowledges that " all the lexicon 
graphers and commentators are against him in 



106 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

that opinion^ — Carson, Bapt., p. 79, as quoted 
by Dr. Miller. How far the confidence which, 
in the face of this acknowledgment, he expresses 
that they are all lorong, and that kis interpreta- 
tion alone is right, is either modest or well- 
founded, must be left to the judgment of the 
impartial reader. 

Mr. B. says that " Professor Stuart, as a 
Biblical critic, is perhaps not excelled by any 
man in the United States ;" and this critic says 
of Dr. Carson, '' He lays down some very ad- 
venturous positions, in respect to one meaning, 
and one only, of words ; which, as it seems to 
me, every lexicoji on earth contradicts, and always 
must contradict." — Stuart on the Mode of Bap- 
tism, p. 100. So much for Rev. A. Carson and 
his translation of haptizo. 

One more remark relative to the translators 
of the common version. It is not only unchris- 
tian to trample upon the ashes of dead men, by 
impugning their motives and misrepresenting 
their conduct, but it is ungenerous to charge 
them and the bishops with making a translation 
to favour sprinkling, when half the evidence, at 
least, which the Baptists adduce to favour im- 
mersion is drawn from the manner in which 
these same translators have rendered the Greek 
prepositions, — m Jordan — out q/'the water, &c. 
When, if they had indulged any design to de- 
ceive, they might have given them fairly a dif- 
ferent rendering. Here, as the Baptists will 
tell you, we have a translation, partly support- 
ing sprinkling, and partly against it. Surely, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 107 

candid reader, these same forty-seven trans- 
lators, who produced the common version in 
1613, were either very stupid, or very honest, 
I think the latter. 

I shall next take some notice of Mr. B.'s list 
of Pedobaptist witnesses. Sermon, pp. 30, 31," 
and Strictures, pp. 14-16. Some of these wit- 
nesses I shall be obliged to pass by, as I have 
not their works at hand to refer to. The reader 
may be able to judge of the fairness, or rather 
unfairness, with which Mr. Booth and Mr. 
Broaddus have treated them all, from a speci- 
men or two which we expect to give. 

The reader will bear in mind, that Mr. B.'s 
proposition which he wishes to sustain is, that 
" immersion, or dipping, is the only proper 
mode," or that " baptizo means to dip onlyP — 
Strictures, p. 15. And he brings these Pedo- 
baptist witnesses into court to prove this. We 
shall see whether he allows them, in his hands, 
to tell the whole truth in the case. I hope he 
will not do as some people do, in quoting the 
words of Christ as a witness for unconditioned 
perseverance, viz., " Of all lohom thou hast given 
me, I have lost none ;" — so far, the witness 
seems to support the position ; but suffer him 
to speak on, — " but the son of perdition!'^ Ah, 
this puts quite another face upon the text ; as I 
hope to do, upon the testimony of, at least, some 
of these witnesses. Attend to me patiently, 
gentle reader — I am, in part, pleading the cause 
of dead men, represented as having lived and 
died '' iiiconsistent,^^ and v/ho are not here to 



108 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

speak for themselves, but whose record is on 
high. I shall begin with Dr. A. Clarke. Mr. B., 
in his Strictures, page 15, after quoting jo^r^ of 
a sentence from Dr. Clarke's Commentary on 
Romans vi, 4, says, " I do think I have proved, 
beyond all question, that haptizo means to im- 
merse, and nothing else." " It has but one 
meaning ; — these learned men knew it, and 
their candour forced them to acknowledge it." 
Reader, does Dr. Clarke acknowledge it? Hear 
him fully on Romans vi, 4 : "It is prohaUe that 
the apostle here alludes to the mode of admi- 
nistering baptism by immersion; I say it is 
PROBABLE — but not absolutely certain that he 
does so, as some imagine ; for in the next verse, 
our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is 
also denoted by our being planted or grafted to- 
gether in the likeness of his death : and Noah's 
ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by 
the rain from heaven, is ^. figure corresponding 
to baptism, 1 Peter iii, 20, 21 ; but neither of 
these gives us the same idea of the outward 
form as burying. We must be careful, there- 
fore, not to lay too much stress on such a cir- 
cumstance." Does this prove Mr. B.'s position? 
I think not. He has taken great liberties with 
this witness ; first he mutilates the sentence, — 
then gives it as a whole, putting a period in the 
place of Dr. C.'s comma, — and then puts the 
%vords baptize and immersion in italics ; and the 
word probable, which the doctor purposely itali- 
cised twice in the note, Mr. B. does not empha- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 109 

size at all. It is bad enough to take such 
liberties with living men. 

Mr. Wesley is the next witness we shall call. 
Mr. B. has treated him with as little candour as 
he has the doctor. In his Strictures, p. 15, he 
attempts to quote Mr. W. on Romans vi, 4, and 
mutilates the sentence ; puts a period where 
Mr. W. has none, and prefixes to the note these 
words, ''It seems the part of candour to confess,^'' 
when Mr. W. has no such words in his note. 
It is a pity that Mr. B. should have lost sight 
of his own candour in attempting to find that 
quality in Mr. W.'s Notes. 

Mr. Wesley's commentary on a parallel pas- 
sage in Col. ii, 12, is often quoted by Baptist 
preachers, to prove that he favoured immersion 
only. I have heard them do this myself. Al- 
though that note is not in Mr. B.'s printed ser- 
mon, I will give it to the reader to disabuse his 
mind of any erroneous impression on that sub- 
ject. This note, when made to speak in favour 
of immersion, is quoted thus : " The ancient 
manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly 
alluded to here." This is only part of the sen- 
tence used by Mr. Wesley, and one word left 
out of that. The note, when fairly quoted, 
proves nothing for the Baptists. Mr. W.'s 
words are as follows : " The ancient manner of 
baptizing by immersion is as manifestly alluded 
to here as the other manner of baptizing by 
sprinkling or pouring of water is. Heb. x, 22. 
But no stress is laid upon the ago of the bap- 



110 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

tized, or the manner of performing it, in one or 
the other place," &c. Candid reader, does 
either of these passages contain the evidence 
that Mr. Wesley acknowledges immersion as 
the only mode ? " I speak as unto wise men." 

Mr. B., Sermon, p. 30, quotes two cases from 
Mr. Wesley's Journal to prove that he ^'preferred 
immersion^'' neither of which proves any such 
thing. The first is the case of a child which 
he baptized at eleven days old, according to the 
" rule of the Church of England," by immer- 
sion ; and as Mr. W. happened to mention that 
the child began to recover from the time of its 
baptism, Mr. B. infers that by mentioning that 
circumstance Mr. Wesley intended to recom- 
mend immersion. I infer, on the contrary, that 
he meant to recommend infant baptism. 

The other case is the case of Mr. Parker's 
child, in Georgia, which Mr. W. refused to bap- 
tize because its mother refused to let it be 
dipped, assigning as his reason, that the rubric 
of his Church required it to be dipped, unless it 
were weak or unwell. — Wesley's Journal, Feb. 
and May, 1736. This was three years before 
Mr. Wesley formed any society; while he was 
a very young man, and was a priest in the 
Church of England. He, of course, as a con- 
scientious man, felt himself bound to regard the 
rubric of his Church. He gives this as his 
reason, and utters no objection to the child 
being baptized by sprinkling or pouring, by 
another person. According to Mr. B.'s own 



MODE OF BAPTISM. Ill 

showing, the grand jury thought Mr. W. justi- 
fiable in view of the rubric. 

Mr. W. could not be supposed to have under- 
stood the subject of baptism then as perfectly as 
he did when he wrote his treatise on that sub- 
ject more than twenty years afterward. In that 
treatise he says, "And as there is no clear proof 
of dipping in Scripture, so there is very pro- 
bable proof of the contrary. It is true, we read 
of being buried with Christ in baptism. But 
nothing can be inferred from such a figurative 
expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would 
make as much for sprinkling as for plunging ; 
since in burying, the body is not plunged through 
the substance of the earth, but rather earth is 
poured or sprinkled upon it." — Works, vol. vi, 
p. 13. And finally this witness says, '^ The 
greatest scholars, and most jjroper judges in the 
matter, testify that the original term translated 
baptize, means not dipping, but washing or 
cleansing." Does this prove Mr. B.'s assertion 
true or false ? He says Mr. Wesley '^preferred 
immersion, and he would have restored immer- 
sion if he could." I think the reader will see 
a very great want of fairness in the manner in 
which the gentleman has treated Mr, Wesley. 
As I am now on the testimony of Mr. W., it 
may not be amiss to remark that the attempt 
which Mr. B. makes, in his sermon, to prove 
that Mr. W. held baptismal regeneration, and 
held even worse views than Mr. A. Campbell, 
I think unworthy a serious notice. 



112 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

His attempt to throw contempt on the Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, 
by attributing to them the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, is one of those stratagems used to 
mislead the mind of the reader ; a part of that 
finesse which is used for the purpose of prose- 
lytism — a tub to decoy the whale, until he can 
be brought within the reach of the ecclesiastical 
harpoon — an attempt to prove that he is right 
by proving that others are wrong. 

The next witness I shall call upon in the list 
of Mr. B.'s witnesses is Professor Stuart. He 
produces the testimony of the professor to prove 
immersion as the exclusive mode. Sermon, 
p. 32. He quotes him thus : " Both of these 
words (hapto and haptizo) mean to dip, plunge^ 
or immerge into any thing liquid." 

The professor says, (Stuart on the Mode of 
Baptism, pages 29 and 81,) "There is, then, 
no absolute certainty from usage that the word, 
{baptlzo,) when applied to designate the rite of 
baptism, means, of course, to immerge or plunge. 
It may mean loashing; possibly (but not proba- 
bly) it may mean copiously moistening or bedew- 
ing ; because words coming from the common 
root (bap) are applied in both these senses, as 
we have seen above." " No injunction is any- 
where given in the Neio Testament respecting the 
manner in which this rite shall be performed. If 
there be such a passage, let it be produced. 
This cannot be done. But it will doubtless be 
said, that * the manner of the rite is involved in 
the word itself, which is used to designate it, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 113 

and that therefore this is as much a matter of 
command as the rite itself.' To this I answer, 
that it would prove a great deal too much." 
Again Professor Stuart says, p. 98, " If you 
say, The classical use of the word abundantly 
justifies the construction I put upon it; my 
reply is, That classical usage can never be very 
certain in respect to a word in the New Testa- 
ment. Who does not know that a multitude of 
Greek words here receive their colouring and 
particular meanings from the Hebrew, and not 
from the Greek classics ?" The sentiment of 
the professor is confirmed by the practice of 
the apostle Paul, who well understood both the 
Hebrew and Greek ; for in Heb. vi, 2, he speaks 
of the " doctrine of baptisms, ^^ and in ix, 10, of 
" divers baptisms ;" in both of which places he 
doubtless applies the word to those ceremonial 
washings or purifications used among the Jews, 
which, he says in verse 13, "were perforaied 
by sprinkling the unclean." And we remark 
here, without fear of successful contradiction, 
that wherever an administrator and a subject 
are found under the Jewish regulations, or Old 
Testament arrangements, the one administer- 
ing and the other receiving any of those " divers 
baptisms," the mode was never by immersion. 
It is true, the Jews washed or bathed themselves 
and their clothes; but these washings they per- 
formed naked, and in private, and never re- 
ceived them from the hands of an administrator. 
If the reader will refer to Num. xix, 17, 21, he 
will see the ceremony detailed to which, the 
8 



1 14 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

apostle refers in Heb. ix, 13, and calls it a bap- 
tism; and he will see that the hyssop was dipped 
in running water, and the person was sprinkled. 
It is worthy of remark also, that among the 
ancient heathens, purification was often per- 
formed by sprinkling water upon the unclean 
with a branch of olive, or other tree. See the 
account in Potter's Greek Antiquities, p. 200 ; 
and an instance also in Virgil's ^Eneid, vi, 229. 

The reader will judge from the testimony we 
have adduced from Professor Stuart, whether 
Mr. B. has quoted him fairly. 

That the witness finds immersion practised 
in " ancient times''' not by " the first church^'' as 
Mr. B. has it, Sermon, p. 32, is true, but he finds 
equal evidence, he says, for baptizing men and 
w^omen naked, and that by dipping them three 
times, &c. He says, " Revolting as this cus- 
tom was, yet it is as certain as testimony can 
make it." P. 75. 

Now, candid reader, I leave you to judge how 
much reliance is to be placed on the mutilated 
testimonies from Pedobaptist writers adduced 
by Mr. B. You can judge of the balance from 
those I have examined. I will close this part 
of the subject with a quotation from that clear 
and conclusive writer Peter Edwards, who was 
himself for a number of years a Baptist preacher, 
and who discovered the weakness of the argu- 
ments of the Baptists, while reading Mr. Booth's 
book m favour oi their views. He says, (speak- 
ing of Mr. Booth's eighty witnesses, to which 
Mr. Broaddus refers,) '• He quotes a number of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 115 

authors, who, as he says, understood the term 
' baptize' to mean immersion, pouring, and 
sprinkling ; and these quotations he calls con- 
cessions. Concessions of what ? That the 
word meant immersion only ? If so, he made 
them concede what they never did concede, 
and what they had no thought of conceding. 
It is a shame to abuse the living or the dead, 
and it is a bad cause that requires it ; I doubt 
whether one of the eighty abused critics was 
on his side." — Edwards, pp. 159, 160. 

We shall now proceed to notice the history 
of the ordinance, as we find it in the New 
Testament ; and see whether the facts therein 
detailed favour our views, or the views of the 
Baptists. We shall first remark upon an allu- 
sion of the apostle Paul to a case of baptism of 
men, women, and children, which occurred in 
an early period of the history of the church ; 
even before what Mr. Booth calls the Ecclesias- 
tico-Political Constitution had any existence. 
The case is recorded in Exod. xiv, 19, 22, and 
is referred to by the apostle, 1 Cor. x, 2, ''And 
were all bajjtized unto Moses, in the cloud and 
in the sea ;" and yet Moses says, '' They went 
into the midst of the sea upon dry ground,''^ 
Here I put the apostle Paul against Mr. Broad- 
dus and Dr. Carson, as I promised to do. They 
say, " The Scriptures know nothing for baptism 
but immersion." The apostle being judge, here 
were six hundred thousand men, besides women 
and children, all baptized while they were on 
'' dry crroundj^ and all ^^ dry shod,'^ 



116 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

The reader must judge between these gentle- 
men and the apostle. But I shall be told that 
they were baptized " in a figure," as they were 
surrounded. It is danoerous to be makinor 
figures to destroy the plain, obvious meaning 
of Scripture. And moreover, they appear not 
to have been surrounded, for there was dry 
land behind them to the shore, and dry land 
before them to the opposite shore ; and the 
cloud as a pillar of fire between them and the 
Egyptians ; so they only had water on their 
right and left, as two walls. However many 
" figures" there are in the passage, there is no 
figure of immersion or dipping in the case. 
The Holy Spirit has seen fit to give us the 
mode in which these people " were baptized 
unto Moses." In Psalm Ixxvii, 16, 17, where 
the psalmist refers to God's having " led his 
people by the hand of jMoses and Aaron," he 
has these remarkable words : " The waters saw 
thee, O God, the waters saw thee ; they were 
afraid ; the depths also were troubled. The 
clouds poured out water." That the passage of 
Israel through the Red Sea is referred to here, 
no man of candour will doubt who reads the 
passage with attention. In answer to the ques- 
tion. How were they baptized in the sea ? we 
remark. As the action of a natural agent, the 
wind was employed to make a passage for 
them ; the extreme agitation of the waters by 
it would occasion a mist or spray ; by this, as 
they passed along, they would be sprinkled ; 
and this, I presume, is what the apostle means 



MODE OF BAPTISxM. 117 

when he says they were baptized in, or by the 
sea. But if our Baptist brethren be dissatisfied 
with this explanation, -it is impossible to make 
the history bend to their views : the Israelites 
could not be dipped, plunged, or overwhelmed 
in the sea, if the statement be true that they 
went through it on dry ground. Here is an- 
other indisputable proof that baptism cannot 
mean immersion only. 

The only immersion on that occasion was 
the overwhelming of the Egyptians in the deep, 
" who sank like lead in the mighty waters," and 
who were seen not again, until they floated up 
upon the shores of the Red Sea, as evidences 
of Jehovah's wrath. 

But we shall be told that the baptism of 
Israel to Moses was " not Christian baptism." 
This is granted, and yet that does not invalidate 
the argument drawn from the case ; because 
the greatest scholar, and best critic of all the 
apostles, St. Paul, calls it haptis7n. But Mr. B. 
says, '' The Scriptures know nothing for bap- 
tism but immersion." There he is fairly at 
issue with the apostle Paul. I will not insult 
the reader's piety and good sense, by even inti- 
mating which of the witnesses is most entitled 
to credit. 

Most of the evidence which our Baptist 
friends bring to support their mode of baptism 
is brought from what is said of John's bap- 
tizing in Jordan, at Enon ; from the case of 
the eunuch, baptized by Philip ; and from the 
passages in Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, where 



118 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

the apostle speaks of being buried with Christ 
by baptism, (fee. 

We might refuse, if we thouorht it necessary, 
all the evidence brought from John's baptism ; 
as it is clear from the Scriptures, and especially 
from Acts xix, that ^'Joints baptism" was essen- 
tially different from the ^' Christian baptism.''' 
Of this truth the celebrated Robert Hall, of the 
Baptist Church, was fully convinced ; as the 
reader may see bv a reference to his Works, 
vol. i, pp. 372, 376^. 

But as Baptist preachers and people do not 
acrree amoncr theimelves with regard to John's 
baptism, and as we wish to allow them all ihe 
evidence they can with any fairness claim, we 
shall not avail ourselves of the advantage above 
alluded to. 

It is said that John baptized '• in Jordan," 
also '' in the wilderness ;" — '' in Bethabara, be- 
yond Jordan ;"' — and " in Enon near to Salem," 
&c. It is allowed on all hands, that the Greek 
particles, rendered in, into, out of, &c., have 
such latitude of meaning, and are translated so 
variously, that nothing certain can be inferred 
in this controversy from their use. The first 
sense which Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, 
gives to " apo,'' is from. '' He came up frofn 
the water." And that sense is given it in this 
text: " Who hath warned you to ^ee from (not 
out of) the wrath of God." And '' eis" has the 
sense of to or u?ito, in the following scriptures, 
viz., in i\Jatt. xv, 24, " I am not sent but unto 
(not into) the lost sheep of the hotise of Israel." 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 119 

Rom. X, 10, " With the heart, man believeth 
unto (not into) righteousness." Matt, iii, 11, 
" I indeed baptize you with water unto (not in- 
to) repentance." And Matt, xvii, 27, " Go thou 
to the sea (not into) and cast a hook," &c. 

The preposition " en," rendered in Jordan, is 
in the New Testament one hundred and fifty 
times rendered with ; and more than a hundred 
times rendered at. And the passage would be 
fairly rendered at Jordan,, or with the water 
of Jordan. And with regard to the eunuch, they 
went down to the water, and came up from the 
water, would be as correct a rendering as into 
and out of. So we see that the argument of 
the Baptists, drawn from the Greek particles, 
evaporates at once, and we are left to deter- 
mine the mode of baptism from other evidence. 
Mr. B. seems to think, that to discuss these 
particles is a " small business," but concludes 
that the translators were ''honest''^ in translating 
them, and that "in their primary signification 
they all favour immersion." This is a summary 
mode, such as we have on page 21 of his Ser- 
mon ; where, although he rejects and ridicules 
" the testimony of the fathers," yet declares — 
" I am perfectly satisfied that the preponderance 
of that testimony is most decidedly in our fa- 
vour." He thinks that John's being at Jordan 
and Enon is conclusive evidence that he bap- 
tized the people by immersion. Then I reply, 
that Ananias baptizing Saul of Tarsus in a pri- 
vate house, and Peter baptizing Cornelius and 
others in a private house, is conclusive evidence 



120 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

that neither Saul nor Cornelius were immersed; 
for, reader, did you ever hear or know of a Bap- 
tist preacher immersing people in a private house! 
On the contrary, I have both heard and read of 
persons being baptized by pouring, at creeks 
and rivers. 

It cannot be shown, we presume, that one of 
those who received John's baptism was in the 
water as much as ankle deep ; as we shall now 
proceed to show. " The chief weight of many 
arguments is owing to our inattention to the 
differences of times, places, circumstances, 
manners, &c. ; modernize, and lay the scene 
of John's ministry in this country, as most, I 
presume, do, and then examine your ideas, and 
see what truth there is in them. You provide 
him with a large church or meeting house, in 
a large town, or populous country place ; he 
preaches, his congregation is affected, and at 
the close of the service they request him to 
baptize them ; he marches at the head of them 
to a river for this purpose. You never see 
ministers going with either adults or infants to 
a river to sprinkle them, but you see ministers, 
who call themselves Baptists^ goi^g down into 
rivers to immerse people, and you conclude 
John the Baptist used immersion. John, how- 
ever, did not live in a large town, but in the 
wilderness ; he had neither church nor meeting 
house to hold the people who resorted to him ; 
the scene of his ministry is the side of a river ; 
he preached out of doors. Geographers inform 
us that the banks of the river Jordan abounded 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 121 

with trees ; and as the climate was hot, he and 
his congregation would surely take their station 
under their shade, and enjoy the atmosphere, 
which would be cool, in consequence of its 
vicinity to the water. Now, suppose he used 
sprinkling, where, under these circumstances, 
could he so conveniently and agreeably perform 
it as in the river just at hand ?" — Isaacs on 
Baptism, p. 47. 

" But why," it is asked, " did John take his 
station beside a river, or at Enon, where there 
was much water, if it were not for the conve- 
nience of baptizing?" I answer — 1st, Because 
it was a central situation. " Then went out to 
him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
ROUND ABOUT JoRDAN." As John.did not itine- 
rate much, it was important to select a situation 
for the exercise of his ministry at which it 
would be most convenient for the surrounding- 
inhabitants to attend. 2d, When we look at 
the immense numbers who resorted from all 
parts to hear John, it would be absolutely ne- 
cessary for him to take his station where there 
was " much water^'' supposing but little was 
needed for baptism. " Then went out unto 
him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusa- 
lem, and ALL the region round about Jordan," 
Mark v, 4 ; Matt, iii, 5. Make what deductions 
you will from these statements, you cannot 
make any common sense of the words, if you 
do not suppose the numbers to have been very 
great. They would not all come on foot ; water 
would be wanted for drink for the people, for 



122 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

culinary purposes, for their various ablutions, 
and for their cattle. And as they flocked in 
vast numbers to John, many of them, no doubt, 
had to wait for days or weeks before the rite 
could be administered to them ; and during all 
this time, in the heat of Palestine, great quan- 
tities of water would be necessary for the 
accommodation of the multitude. In our cli- 
mate, although much cooler, we alioays select 
a place for camp meetings, when such can be 
had, where there is " inuch watery And we 
sometimes appoint them near rivers, although 
we expect not more than live thousand persons 
to attend them ; yet it is not our calculation 
to immerse one individual of the thousands that, 
attend. 

If the reader will consult 2 Chron. xxxii, 3,4, 
he will see a case in point. When Sennacherib 
invaded this very country where John was 
preaching and baptizing, we read that '• they 
stopped all the fountains, and the brook that 
ran through the midst of the land, saying. Why 
should the kings of Assyria come and find much 
water f" It was thought the Assyrian army 
w^ould need much water ; but no one ever sus- 
pected their king intended to baptize them in it. 
No, they wanted it for other purposes ; and so 
did the thousands who attended the ministry of 
John, at Jordan and Enon. 

The reader should bear in mind, that while 
Christ, and the twelve, and the seventy, were 
going about into the towns, villages, &c., John 
was comparatively local in his ministry, which 



MODE OF BAPTISM, 123 

made the multitude greater, and required them 
to come a greater distance ; and often to remain 
longer to accomplish the purpose of their visit. 
The PEOPLE CAME to John ; Christ and his mi- 
nisters went to the people. Again we say, 
it is utterly incredible that John could have 
immersed the vast multitudes that came to him, 
besides doing the preaching and answering the 
questions put to him, and (according to the 
practice of modern Baptists) receiving and 
judging of the experience of the candidates. 
I suppose they will not, deny that they gave in 
an experience to John, Especially as Mr. Bene- 
dict, in his History of the Baptists, calls John 
their " ancient brother y 

Robert Hall felt the weight of this objection 
to immersion ; drawn from the number to be 
baptized. Hence he says, " It is by no means 
certain, however, that John was the only person 
who performed that ceremony ; indeed, when 
we consider the prodigious multitudes that flock- 
ed to him, the ' inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, 
and all the region round about Jordan,' it seems 
scarcely practicable ; he most probably employed 
coadjutors," &c. — Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 361. 

Now I suppose, reader, that I have as good 
a right as Mr. Hall to find a solution to this 
difficulty. The Scriptures do not say one word 
about a single coadjutor employed by the Baptist. 
I account for his being able to baptize the ^'pro- 
digious multitudes, ^"^ as Mr. H. calls them, on 
another principle, viz., he administered the or- 
dinance by sprinkling or pouring. This was 



124 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Mr. Wesley's view of it. See his notes on 
Matt, iii, 6. " It seems," says he, " that they 
stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and 
John, passing along before them, cast water on 
their heads or faces, by which means he might 
baptize many thousands in a day." 

It is not supposed that John exercised his 
ministry more than twelve or eighteen months, 
and yet, at a moderate calculation, he must 
have baptized one million of people ; for Mr. B. 
supposes. Sermon, p. 35, that Jerusalem alone 
* contained a million of people ;" then take 
*' Judea, and the region round about Jordan," 
&c., and allow that one half of the inhabitants 
received his baptism, which we think not un- 
likely ; then we ask, during how many hours 
in the day could any man preach, and stand in 
the water, for the purpose of baptizing by im- 
mersion ? We will admit; for the sake of argu- 
ment, that he could endure this labour six hours 
each day, for eighteen months. And say that 
he baptized as expeditiously as the gentleman 
in Culpepper did, of whom Mr. B. speaks. Ser- 
mon, p. 35, " who baptized seventy-five persons 
very decently in twenty-five minutes ;" — I say, 
suppose all this, and when he had accomplished 
his eighteen months' work, at the rate of one 
thousand and eighty each day, he would have 
given the ordinance to a little upward of half 
a million. What Mr. B. says about its taking 
" no more time to baptize hy immersion than hy 
sprinkling,^'' Sermon, p. 35, utterly astonishes 
me. Can you think, gentle reader, that this 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 125 

carries upon its face the appearance oi proha- 
hility? Again, John, as the son of a Jewish 
priest, would most likely use water in the way 
in which it was commonly used among the 
Jews, i. e., by sprinkling. And if it be said 
that " John's baptism was from heaven," I reply, 
So were the divers baptisms among the Jews. 
Heb. ix, 10, 13. And as the Jewish priests 
entered upon their work at thirty years of age, 
so did John. And using, like them, an applica- 
tion of water to the body, as an emblem of moral 
purity ; it is left to any impartial judgment, 
whether he is most rationally supposed to have 
plunged men under the water, (a thing unprac- 
tised among them,) or whether he only sprinkled 
or poured water on them, a rite divinely insti- 
tuted, and every day familiarly practised in that 
churchr — Towgood on Baptism, p. 104. And 
to the fact that John came as the harbinger of 
the Messiah, about to appear, for whom the 
Jews w^ere all anxiously looking ; so much so, 
that they inquired of him ^' if lie were the 
Christ ;" — I say, to this fact may be attributed 
the great and general influx of disciples to 
.John. He applied sacramental water to them, 
and bid them repent, reform, and look for, and 
believe on the Messiah, just about to appear, 
who would apply the Holy Ghost to their souls, 
as he had applied the purifying element to their 
bodies ; saying to all the people, " I indeed 
baptize you Vjitli water; he shall baptize you 
vyith the Holy GJiostP Here is a clear intima- 
tion from John himself that the water was ap- 



126 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

plied to the subject, and not the subject applied 
to the water. 

What John calls being baptized with the Holj/ 
Ghost, Matt, iii, 11, Christ calls, being baptized 
with the Holj/ Ghost, Acts i, 5. And Peter calls 
it being baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts ii, 
16. And in Acts xi, 17, 33, it is said to be 
" POURED out" and " shed forth." And in 
Acts X, 44, it is said, the Holy Ghost fell on 
THEM ; and also in xi, 15, Peter says, it fell 
on them. Now I suppose that the word bap- 
tize, in the mouth of John the Baptist, is equal 
to the word baptize in the mouth of St. Peter ; 
and equal also to the same word in the mouth 
of Jesus Christ. Here I put, not a lexicographer, 
or an army of them, against Dr. Carson and 
Mr. Broaddus, but, what is of infinitely more 
weight, (for, however great the witness of men 
may be, " the witness of God is greater,") John, 
Peter, and Christ, all against these gentle- 
men. I hope, reader, you will never become 
so learned as to declare that pouring is no bap- 
tism, when you have the authority of Christ 
himself for using the word in the sense of 
pouring, viz., " Ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This is 
the prediction of Christ ; and it had its fulfil- 
ment on the day of Pentecost, by the pouring 
OUT and shedding forth of the Spirit upon 
the apostles. Now, candid reader, was there 
any thing like immersion here ? And if .Tohn 
understood the language which he used when 
speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, and if the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 127 

sign is to agree with the thing signified, the 
shadow with the substance^ how could John give 
water baptism by immersion, when he knew that 
Christ would pour out, or shed fortpi, the 
Spirit ? 

But Mr. B., Sermon, p. 39, thinks it very 
" absurd" to suppose that " the manner of the 
immaterial Spirit should be represented by the 
use that is made of a material element." How 
absurd — " strange enough is the argument" 
drawri from the pouring out of the Spirit. But, 
unfortunately for this gentleman, on the very 
next page he is guilty of this very absurdity. 
Hear him, in quoting Ezek. xxxvi, 25 — " Thea 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you," &c. He 
says, " The allusion is, unquestionably, to those 
divine influences by which men are cleansed 
from their moral defilement." " Divine influ- 
ences," are they immaterial? or has Mr. B. 
found some mode of purifying men vnthout the 
immaterial Spirit ? — some " divine influences" 
that are not of the Spirit of God ? He quotes 
the very text that is against him, and says, 
" God himself is to sprinkle clean water ;" and 
this clean water to be applied by sprinkling 
represents the " divine influences," Mr. B. him- 
self being judge. But then it is " absurd" to 
represent the " immaterial Spirit'^ by the " ma- 
terial element water." So God himself is re- 
presented here as guilty of this " absurdity." 
For if the question be asked. How will God 
cleanse them from their idols ? the answer is, 
With " clean ivater^ In what manner will he 



128 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

apply the element ? the answer is, " I will 
sprinkle clean water upon you." It is strange 
that men should thus talk, not only without 
book, but against the book of God. la such 
cases they demonstrate nothing but their own 
folly, or the weakness and hopelessness of their 
cause. 

The baptism of the Spirit by " pouring," and 

" SHEDDING FORTH," and " FALLING UPON," &C., 

has always been very embarrassing to our Bap- 
tist friends. Mr. B., Sermon, p. 39, labours 
hard to evade the matter, by attempting to show 
that the disciples, on the day of Pentecost, were 
immersed in the Spirit. He asks, " Were they 
immersed in the Spirit, when the Spirit filled 
the room where they were sitting, or were they 
not? I am willing your common sense should 
decide." Here he will have it, that though the 
Spirit was " poured," it was poured until the 
room was filled, so that they loere immersed in 
it. It is strange that Christian men will persist 
in tying down the word baptize to one meaning 
only, and that at the expense of the word of 
God, and even of common sense. For that he 
has " erred in vision," or " stumbled in judg- 
ment," the reader can clearly see, by a refer- 
ence to Acts ii. Not one word is said there 
about the Spirit ^'filling the house, ^^ nor of its 
" overwhelming the disciples." The language 
in Acts ii, 1, 2, is, " And when the day of Pen- 
tecost was fully come, they were all with one 
accord in one place. And suddenly there came 
A SOUND from heaven as a rushing mighty 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 129 

wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each 
of them. And they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost." If it is said the house was 
filled, and they were therefore immersed, the 
questions may be asked, With what was the 
house filled ? With what were they immersed ? 
In English, it is expressed by the pronoun 
u IT,"—" it filled all the house ;" the Greek 
has no pronoun. Well, what is the antecedent 
to "^Y?" I answer, the word ^' sounds The 
word in the Greek is ** echos," an echo^ a rever- 
berating sound. 

So it seems Mr. B. has only erred in vision, 
so far as to mistake a sou?id, an echo, for the 
Spirit of God. Is, then, a reverberating sound, 
surrounding the bodies of the apostles, and the 
Spirit of God falling upon their hearts, the 
same thing ? The reader can judge. 

The sound filled the house, and — if you 
please, though it sounds rather odd — they were 
immersed in the sou7id. But this is not to be 
confounded with the cloven tongues, or the Holy 
Spirit, mentioned in the following verses 
*' Thei/ were all filled with the Holy Gpiost." 
The SOUND filled the place ; the Spirit filled 
the persons; the sound was without them; the 
Spirit was loithin them. 

The old prophet did not commit such a 

blunder as to mistake the sound of wind for the 

voice of the Spirit. " And behold, the Lord 

passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the 

9 



130 OBLiaATIONj SUBJECTS, AND 

mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks, before 
the Lord ; but the Lord was not in the wind," 
1 Kings xix, IL As in this case, the luind 
came before the Lord spake to the prophet in 
" a still small voice ;" so, on the day of Pente- 
cost, the rushing mighty loind came first, and 
filled the house, then the Lord poured out 
upon them the Holy Ghost, 

But granting, for the sake of argument, that 
the Spirit is intended by the sound, the Baptist 
manner of administering the ordinance is not 
helped by it. For the sound, or Spirit, came 
Dowx, DESCENDING xtpon them. The baptismal 
element came upon the subjects. They did not 
descend into it. The element was active ; the 
subjects were passive ; which exactly corre- 
sponds with our mode. In the mode of Mr. B. 
this order is completely reversed. The view of 
Mr. Broaddus, on this case, makes against a 
favourite notion of many of his Baptist brethren, 
viz., that the baptism promised by Christ, and 
given on the day of Pentecost, was restricted 
to the apostles as the subjects ; and to the ex- 
traordinary or miraculous gifts conferred upon 
them ; and not to the ordinary gift of the Holy 
Spirit, conferred upon all Christians. For if, 
as he says, '^ the wind was the Sjnrit,'^^ then all 
present were equally immersed with the apos- 
tles ; and we learn from verse 1 5 of the pre- 
ceding chapter, that " the number of the names 
together were about a hundred and twenty.''^ 
" And when the day of Pentecost w^as fully 
come, they were all, with one accord, in one 



MODE OF BAPTISM. * 131 

PLACE.'' " And suddenly there came a sound 
from heaven," &c. So that they all obtained 
the extraordinary influences of the Spirit. It 
is not admitted by those who refer the baptism 
of the Spirit to its extraordinary influences, that 
any received it, except the twelve apostles ; yet 
Mr. B.'s interpretations of the matter give mira- 
culous powers to them all, one hundred and 
twenty in number. Both he and they are wrong, 
for the imnd was not the Spirit; and the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost is not confined to the apos- 
tles : for Joel said, *^ It shall be poured out upon 
^LL flesh," verse 17; and Peter said, "The 
promise is to all, as many as the Lord our God 
shall call,^^ verse 39. Reader, no man in his 
senses ever supposed that " all flesh," — " all 
that the Lord should call" to be Christians, — 
were to receive the extraordinary gifts of the 
Holy Ghost. You see, then, with what pro- 
priety our Baptist friends attempt to turn into 
ridicule the practice of Pedobaptists praying 
for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

In every case where the Spirit is spoken of 
as having been given, it is said to have been 

" SHED FORTH," Or " POURED OUT," Or " CAME 

ON THEM," or " FELL ON ALL THEM which heard 
the word." " On the Gentiles, also, was poured 
out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts x, 44, 45. 
And in xi, 15, 16, Peter says, "And as I began 
to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
us at the beginning. Then remembered I the 
word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed 
BAPTIZED with water ; but ye shall be bap- 



132 OBLIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 

TizED xcith the Holy Ghost.'' There is no 
wind, or sounds said to have filled the house of 
Cornelius, when the Holy Ghost was poured 
out upon the Gentiles. This, notwithstanding, 
Peter calls a hapiism of the Holy Ghost, by 
pouring out ox fallins^ upon them. 

Query — Did Peter give thera trater baptism 
by immersion, in full view of the fact that God 
had just given thera spiritual baptism by pour- 
itig? It is scarcely credible. 

It is enough for me ta be satisfied that I fol- 
low the example of him who baptizes with the 
Holy Ghost : that I apply the water to meri's^ 
bodies as he applies the Spirit to their souls. 
Thus a spiritual baptism will be administered 
in the church to the end of time ; and this ordi- 
nance will be given according to the Pedobap- 
tist mode ; for it is written, " I will pour out my 
Spirit upon all flesh, ^ — See Isaacs on Baptism, 
pp. 57. 58. 

So much for Mr. B. and his •' immersion in 
the Spirit.'^ Again : ^lost of the cases of bap- 
tism recorded in the Acts furnish strong, not 
to say conckisive, endence that they were not 
baptized by immersion, but in some other way. 

I am aware that our Baptist friends have a 
wonderfid facility at finding ''streams,^- ''bat?is,^^ 
'' tanksy^ '^ pools'^ " hogsheads," &c., Sermon, 
p. 35, whenever they read of a case of baptism. 
Unfortunately for their cause, however, they 
vers- often cannot acrree amono^ themselves con- 
ceming the means or facilities for giving the 
ordinance by immersion in the particular case. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 133 

Hence, when you ask, Where were the three 
thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost ? 
each sets his imagination to work to find a 
baptizing place. Mr. B. says, Sermon, p. 38, 
" The city was watered by the brook Kidron, 
and the pools of Siloam and Bethesda, which 
would furnish an abundant supply of water." 
In the warm season the brook Kidron was 
generally dry, and travellers say that it is dry 
nine months in the year ; and that those three 
thousand were baptized in warm weather is 
evident from the fact that the feast of Pentecost 
took place at |he close of wheat harvest. This 
stream was always inconsiderable, except after 
heavy rains : and these made the stream muddy 
and unfit for bathing. Mr. B. says that the filth 
from the city did not run np stream, and there- 
fore they might have gone above the city for 
the purpose of immersion. But the reader will 
recollect that this gentleman has said " Jerusa- 
lem contained a million of inhabitants ;" and, 
according to Strabo, was about sixty furlongs, 
or about eight miles in length. Then, sup- 
posing the preaching to have taken place in 
the temple, as is most likely; and admitting 
that temple to have stood in the midst of the 
city; it would have been a journey of at least 
four miles to have gotten to Kidron above the 
city. Some of our Baptist friends, feeling the 
difficulty connected with the supposition that 
they were baptized in Kidron, (especially as 
the passage says not one ivord about their leav- 
ing the place o^ preaching in order to receive 



134 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

the ordinance,) and their theory requiring them 
to find some means whereby to immerse the 
three thousand, have supposed that they were 
baptized in the " brazen lave)\^'* or in the vessels 
used by the Jews for purification, <fcc. The 
reader will recollect that these public and pri- 
vate bathing places were in the keeping of the 
enemies of Christ — those who had been his 
betrayers and murderers. It is not likely that 
they would allow Peter, and the other apostles, 
to use them for the baptizing of their converts. 
If there had been a probability that Peter wished 
to drown those who had received the doctrine 
of Christ's Messiahship, then, indeed, he might 
possibly have been permitted to use their baths. 
Moreover, the manner of purifying among the 
Jews must have been — generally, at least — by 
sprinkling or pouring, as we may learn from 
.lohn ii, 6 : " And there were set six water pots 
of stone, after the manner of the purifying of 
the Jews." We have no doubt there was water 
enough in Jerusalem to immerse ten thousand 
people, and we should believe they were bap- 
tized by that mode, if we had any evidence of 
it. But, in the total absence of all evidence, 
we cannot take the suppositions of our Baptist 
friends for proof. 

Again, the cases of Cornelius and his family, 
Saul of Tarsus, and those that Paul met at 
Ephesus, Acts xix, and the jailer and his 
family at Philippi, were all cases where the 
ordinance was administered without so much 
as a '^bath^^ ox ^^ cistern'^ being mentioned. But 



■ MODE OF BAPTISM. 135 

the immersionists are always ready with the 
means to immerse ; they find a ** bathing tub" 
in the house of Cornelius, and a tank^ or cistern^ 
in the jail at Philippi, and a hath in the private 
house where Ananias found penitent Saul of 
Tarsus. I would just suggest, that if they were 
to apply the reasoning which they use with 
regard to " infant baptism" to these cases, it 
would ruin their own cause. 

The baptism of Lydia and her family, and of 
the eunuch, are all the Christian baptisms that 
were performed out of doors, so far as we have 
any information. On the case of Lydia, Mr. B., 
Sermon, p. 37, makes a remark calculated to 
mislead the reader. " It is worthy of remark," 
says he, " that the sermon which produced her 
conversion was preached by the river side, and 
that she and her family were baptized before 
they went into her house. As they were at 
the river side, they could readily be immersed^ 
And I say, as they were near the water, they 
could be readily sprinkled. If the reader will 
be at the pains to look at Acts xvi, 13-15, he 
will see plainly that Mr. B.'s remark is unfair, 
and makes an erroneous impression. The state 
of the case was simply this: Paul, Silas, Ti- 
mothy, and Luke, in their travel, came to Phi- 
lippi*; they remained there " certain days ;" and 
when the sabbath came, they walked " out of 
the^^ idolatrous city, and found a few women by 
the river side holding a prayer meeting. What, 
it may be asked, induced these women to go 
out there to worship ? Not to receive baptism^ 



136 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

candid reader ; that, in all probability, was not 
in all their thoughts when they went to the 
river side. They were either Jews or prose- 
lytes, who were not suffered to worship the 
true God within the limits of the heathen city. 
And when the apostles went out, and, as by 
accident, fell in with these devout women, they 
" sat down and spake to them." And while 
Paul was speaking, '' the Lord opened Lydia's 
heart." And he, pursuing the *' apostolic pat- 
tern," gave the ordinance of baptism just where 
the word took effect. When the vrord took 
effect on the people out of doors, they did not 
go into the house to administer the ordinance ; 
and when it took effect in the house, they did not 
go out of doors to give the ordinance! If Paul 
had been a preacher of the modern Baptist 
stamp, and had worked by f^e?V " pattern," he 
would not have given Lydia baptism until she 
had related a " Christian experience," such as 
should be considered " evangelical ;" and per- 
haps not until she had waited for weeks or 
months, to be certain that she was not deceived. 
Paul's practice in this case was just such as a 
Pedobaptist's would have been. They never go 
from icater in order to baptize. And he bap- 
tized Lydia and her family at the " river side,^'* 
not IN the river, before they went into the 
house, or even into the city. 

Reader, this presents a striking contrast with 
a case which occurred under the administration 
of a Baptist preacher, not fifty miles from where 
Mr. B. now lives. A candidate presented him- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 137 

self in the " church meeting," and related his 
*' experience ;" from which it appeared he had 
been convicted several years before, and converted 
some twelve months, or more, prior to his offering 
himself for baptism. The preacher was highly 
dehghted with the delay; pronounced it an 
" apostolical experience," — " the toork not of a 
few days, but of years f^ and admitted him to 
the ordinance. So he understood the " apostolic 
pattern." I leave it to the candour and'common 
sense of the reader, whether the New Testa- 
ment furnishes any such case as the above ! 
Saul of Tarsus was baptized on the third day 
after his conviction, and that is the longest 
delay we read of. In justice to Mr. B., I must 
say, he is not the preacher referred to. 

On the case of the jailer, Acts xvi, 23 to 40, 
Mr. B., Sermon, p. 37, has attempted a strange 
imposition upon the reader. He does indeed 
" correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the 
party," in the language of Mr. G. Campbell, as 
quoted by Mr. B. Putting certain words in 
capital letters, he makes an attempt to prove 
that the jailer and his family went out to a place 
where there was water sufficient to immerse 
them. I was more convinced from this part of 
Mr. B.'s sermon than from any other, that he 
considered his cause in danger. I request the 
reader to take up his Bible, the plain man's 
lexicon, and just look at the passage in the 
spirit of candour, and he will see, without the 
wisdom of Solomon, that this gentlefhan has 
attempted to make the passage speak a language 



138 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

which Luke, the writer, never intended. He 
has put the words '-broughf^ and ^'out^ and 
^^ brought them into his houseT in capitals, and 
says, '• As to the facilities for obtaining water, 
the river Str^inon, as geographers tell us, ran 
through the city, where water could be had, 
even if the jailer had no bathing cistern on his 
premises ;*' and then says, '• I have shown that 
the jailer, and Paul, and Silas, went out of the 
house to. administer baptism ; and though they 
should have to go five miles to a river or bath, 
I will put them to that trouble, before I will 
consent that baptize shall be deprived of the 
meaning which Professor Stuart says ' all lexi- 
cogTaphers and critics of any note have assigned 
to it.' '' Professor Stuart says just the contrary, 
as I have shown in another place. Mr. B. pro- 
ceeds : '' But the truth is, to a mind disposed to 
be governed by the plain, common sense mean- 
ing of the language of Scripture, there will be 
no difficulty in finding water for immersian 
within reach of the jailer's house, or indeed in 
his house, prepared for the purpose in a hogs- 
head, if it were not so fully stated that they 
were baptized while out of the housed Baptist 
preachers heretofore (so far as I am informed) 
have never dreamed that they were baptized 
out of the house, but have invented a ^* cistern'^ 
or ^''tank'^'' in the jail. This gentleman has 
struck out a new course — invented a new salvo 
for the case. He had just as well have put the 
words " thrust them into,^^ in verse 24, in capi- 
tals, to prove that Paul dipped them into the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 139 

^' Strymon,'^ as to have put '^brought them out," 
and ^'brought them into his liouse^'^ in capitals, 
to prove that they went out to a baptizing place. 
One would have been as near the truth as the 
other. And these are the men who stand up 
and tell the people they only need to look into 
the New Testament, without note or comment, 
to see " the law of baptism,'* and the practice 
of the apostles under that law. " The Bible," 
say they, " is the best book on baptism." 

Most commentators give the text first, and 
then the explanation, but these reverse this order. 
They give the Baptist comment ^r^^, and then 
the sacred text. The comment is, " The word 
baptize means to dip or immerse only^'' and 
then if you meet with a text like the one under 
consideration, where it is diifficult to find water 
for immersion, then you must apply your com- 
ment on the word " baptize ;" and have them 
plunged, any how, even if you immerse them in 
a figure, " or immerse them in a wind or sound ^^ 
for the Spirit, or have them go to the river 
" Strymon," or even five miles at midnight ; 
and if you cannot see that they were really out 
of doors, you can immerse them " in a hogs- 
head" of water, prepared for the purpose. 

I will now give the reader a view of this case 
as it stands in the passage referred to above. 
In verse 23, we find that " the magistrates laid 
many stripes on Paul and Silas, and cast them 
into prison, charging the jailer to keep them 
safely." In verse 24, we find, " he having re- 
ceived such a charore, thrust them into the inner 



140 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

prison^ and made their feet fast in the stocks." 
I ask, Where are they now? You say they are 
in the inner prison, or dungeon. Very good. 
When God had shaken the jail with an earth- 
quake, verse 26, and the doors flew open, " and 
every one's bands were loosed," the jailer 
awakening up, " called for a light, sprang in, 
and fell down before Paul and Silas," and 
brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I 
do to be saved ? Verses 29, 30. I ask. Where 
are they now 1 You say, Just where they were 
before they were put in the inner prison. That 
is true. Reader, you will take notice that the 
words "-hroxLglit them ouf^ occur before any thing 
is said either about believing or baptism, and 
before there was any preaching. And they 
said, verse 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." 
*' And he took them the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, 
he and all his, straightway.^^ Verse 33. " And 
when he had brought them into his house, he 
set fneat before them," &c. Verse 34. And the 
reader will find in verse 40, that " they went 
out of the prison, and entered into the house of 
Lydia." 

Mr. B.'s version of the matter makes them 
come out of the house at midnight to preach the 
gospel, as well as to baptize ; for the words, 
brought them out, are before his '' speaking to 
them the word of the Lord," for they are not 
said to have been brought into his house until 
after the baptizing ; he brought them in to give 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 141 

thein something to eat. As Mr. B. will have 
them brought out of the jail before the service 
took place, and as we have seen they were not 
in the jailer's apartment until after the baptism ; 
then they must have exhibited the odd spectacle 
of persons going out of a building to preach at 
?nidnight. Unfortunately for Mr. B,'s theory, 
where the bringing out is spoken of, nobody is 
mentioned but Paul, Silas, and the jailer. Yet, 
when the baptizing is mentioned, "lie and all 
his" are " baptized straightivay .^'' The true state 
of the case was evidently this : he brought them 
out of the dungeon into the outer prison, and 
asked, " What must I do to be saved ?" The 
family, children, and domestics are assembled 
to hear the sermon, " and they spake unto him 
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in 
his housed Here the Greek word otKLa is used, 
which signifies the household, the whole do- 
mestic establishment, according to Schrevelius's 
Lexicon. He interprets it by the Latin word 
domus, which Cole's Latin Dictionary interprets, 
a house, family, household, &;c. 

When the sermon was over, and the jailer 
had received baptism, with all his family, and 
had washed the stripes of the preachers, " he 
took them into his house, and set meat before 
them," &c. Now, I suppose, in this, as in all 
large cities, the jailer occupied a part of the 
same building with the prisoners. At least, he 
was so near, that in the midnight hour, when he 
awaked up, he saw " the prison doors open ;" 
and when he drew out his sword to commit 



142 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

suicide, Paul cried to him, " Do thyself no harm." 
And he '' called for a light, and sprang in." I 
ask again, Where ? Into the inner prison. The 
phraseology of the passage would leave the 
impression on the mind of an unbiassed reader 
that the jailer's family resided in a part of the 
same building with the prisoners. The Roman 
law made prison keepers answerable for the 
safe keeping of those committed to them : hence 
the precaution this man took to put the prisoners 
in the dungeon, and make " their feet fast in 
the stocks." And hence he was about to take 
his own life, " when he supposed the prisoners 
had fled." We find, from Acts xii, 18, 19, that 
the keepers of the prison who let Peter escape 
paid for it with their lives. And they were 
imder the same civil jurisdiction or laws with the 
Philippian jailer. I am quite willing to leave 
it to the decision of the intelligent reader ; in 
view of the law — in view of the fact of Peter's 
escape, and the death of those who suffered 
him to escape — in view of its being midnight, 
and in view of the passage saying not one word 
about their going auxiij from the prison ; — whe- 
ther they went to the '' river Strymon," or to 
any other place, for the jmrpose of immersion ? 
So much for Mr. B.'s " brought them out." 
As it regards a bath or cistern in the prison, for 
the comfort and cleanliness of the prisoners, 
we would remark that such things are not very 
common, even now, after all the untiring efforts 
of such men as John Howard, the philanthropist, 
in behalf of prisoners ; and they made no part 



310DE OF BAPTIJSM. 143 

of the appendages of an ancient heathen prison. 
I think it will appear that the circumstances 
of this case of baptism are quite as inflexible 
against immersion as Mr. B. is disposed to think 
the Greek word PaTrn^o is for it. And if he 
had possessed candour enough to quote his 
Schrevelius on this word, as he did on the word 
iracSca when arguing against the " infants,'''' 
Sermon, p. 13, we should have had a different 
account of it. It suited his purpose better to 
quote Dr. Carson, as he makes the word mean 
immersion only. And if, in the case above 
referred to, viz., iratdia^ he had possessed the 
candour to quote the parallel passage in Luke 
xviii, 15, he would have found the word 
" (3()£6a,'" the plural of iSpe<pog, used, Avhich 
Schrevelius would inform him signifies " in- 
fans,^^ an '' infant, ^^ a ^^babeP He would thus 
have been saved from the ridiculous attitude 
of a Christian teacher attempting to explain 
away the words of the Holy Ghost, as used by 
St. Mark. 

The case of the eunuch, found in Acts viii, 
26 to 39, is considered by our opponents as 
conclusive evidence in favour of immersion. 
But when this matter is sifted a little, the evi- 
dence will not appear quite as conclusive as 
those have thought who have been taught all 
their life to consider nothing to be baptism that 
falls short of dipping or immersion. With re- 
gard to the prepositions used here, we have 
shown in another place that nothing can be 
gathered from their use in this controversy. 



144 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Mr. B. seems to concede that the eunuch's im- 
mersion cannot be proved from ""going intd'^ 
and '' coming out'^ of the water. He says, Stric- 
tures, p. 17, and Sermon, p. 36, " You must not 
suppose that my argument is founded on going 
into^ and coming out of, the water : for all this, 
I know, might be done without any immersion ; 
here is the argument : Why should they go into 
the water, merely to sprinkle V^ and asks, " Who 
ever said that going into the water means im- 
mersion ? Did any intelligent man ever say so ?" 
I reply that many men have said so ; but as it 
regards their intelligence^ we say nothing. In 
this case, as in most others, Mr. B. has to re- 
sort to his version of baptizo. 

When we refer to the passage, we find that 
the eunuch was travelling through a country 
which was " a desert^' and, consequently, the 
water they came to was not a considerable 
stream ; as is probable, we think, from the fact 
that in that country even small streams made 
the places where they were found populous, as 
any person can see by a reference to the map. 
And, moreover, as the streams where John is 
said to have administered the ordinance are 
mentioned hy name, it is probable that if this 
had been a watercourse, or stream, worthy a 
name, its name also would have been given. 
The language of the eunuch is, " See, here is 
water !" — an exclamation, as though he had 
unexpectedly discovered it. The reader may 
find, by a reference to the passage which he 
w^as reading at the time Philip fell in with him, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 145 

that it stands in intimate connection with, and 
is a part of the same prophecy, where Isaiah, lii, 
15, speaks of Christ " sprinkling many nations^'* 
And indeed there are but six verses between, 
that passage and the text from which " PhiUp 
preached unto him Jesus." He, no doubt, gave 
him to understand that himself and others were 
acting under a commission to " disciple all na- 
tions, baptizing them," &c., and, of consequence, 
when he became willing to receive Christ, he 
offered himself for baptism. I can see, there- 
fore, how he could readily understand the rite 
of initiation to be administered by sprinkling. 
For, whether the passage above quoted was 
explained by Philip as alluding to baptism lite^ 
rally ^ or to the thing signified by it, in either 
case the mode is by " ^sprinklings many na- 
tions." So I conclude that he did not give him 
baptism by immersion, as a symbol of that spi- 
ritual washing that was to be effected by 
sprinkling. But perhaps an immersionist would 
like to suggest that the prophet refers to what 
Christ would do himself; and that, therefore, 
the prophecy cannot refer to the apostle's 
making " disciples of the nations by sprinkling." 
I reply, that it is very common in Scripture 
language for God to be represented as doing 
what he causes to be done. The reader can 
find a striking case in point, John iii, 22 : "After 
these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them 
and baptized.''^ Compare this with the first and 
second verses of the next chapter : " When, 
10 



146 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had ' heard that Jesus made and baptized more 
disciples than John.' Though Jesus himself 
baptized not, hut his disciples.''^ Here is evi- 
dently as plain a declaration that " Christ bap* 
tized,'^ as the prophet has, " he shall sprinkle 
many nations," and yet we are informed subse- 
quently that ^' Jesus baptized not, but his dis- 
ciples." 

How natural, then,, was it for the eunuch to 
ask for baptism, if Philip gave him an explana- 
tion of the prophecy, as referring to the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism given by " sprinkling 
the nations." Whatever others may think, I 
am decidedly of the opinion that this is the 
genuine interpretation of the passage. And 
that the whole of the fifty-second and fifty-third 
chapters of Isaiah refer to what should take 
place under the gospel ; " the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow," in 
the setting up and establishment of the gospel 
kingdom ; when the Messiah should " see his 
seed," " and the pleasure of the Lord should 
prosper in his hands," when "his doctrine" 
shall " come down" on the nations " as rain," 
imder the preaching of his apostles and their 
successors, and when by their hands he should 
*' sprinkle many nations ^ 

I conclude, from the above, that Philip and 
the eunuch came to a spring or run of water ; 
that they both alighted, and going to the water, 
he received the ordinance, and afterward went 
on his way rejoicing. But Mr. B. assks, ** Why 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 147 

should they go into the water in order to 
sprinkle ?" I reply, For aught that appears to 
the contrary, they were no more in the water 
than the sons of the prophets were " when they 
came etc* to Jordan to cut down wood," 2 Kings 
vi, 4 ; the same preposition is used in the case 
under consideration. I presume the sons of the 
prophets hardly stood in the river to fell trees. 

The missionary, Mr. Wolf, found a sect of 
Christians in Mesopotamia who called them- 
selves " the followers of John the Baptist," who 
baptized children at thirty days old, and who 
performed the rite by sprinkling water upon the 
child at tjie edge of a river. See his Journal, 
vol. ii, p. 311, as quoted by Watson. Mr. Wolf 
asks, " Why do they baptize in rivers ?" An- 
swer : " Because St. John the Baptist baptized 
in the river Jordan." " Thus we have in modern 
times ^ river baptism loithoiU immersion. ^^ 

We next notice a favourite argument of our 
Baptist friends, drawn from the supposed immer- 
sion of Christ. " If nobody else ever was bap- 
tized by immersion," say they, " surely the 
Master was ; and we are commanded to take 
tip our cross and follow him.^^ We are by no 
means convinced that Christ was immersed. 
And if it could be shown that he was, I have 
not been able to find in the New Testament 
the command to receive the same baptism that 
he received. I hold that the baptism of Jesus 
Christ was very peculiar; such as no other 

* El^ Tov 7iop6av7}v. See version of the LXX. — Ed. 



148 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

person ever received. 1st. He being without 
sin, could neither repent nor promise amend- 
ment of life. 2d. Being the wisdom of God, 
he could be taught nothing. 3d. Being the 
Christ, he could not profess that he would be- 
lieve in him that should come after him, that is, 
in himself. He therefore was baptized, 1st. To 
honour the office of his herald ; 2d. That he 
might fulfil the righteousness of John's dispen- 
sation ; and 3d. That by this rite he might be 
inducted into his public office, as tlie " prophet 
like to Moses ;" as the High Priest over the 
house of God. The language of Robert Hall 
is, " He was inaugurated into his office at his 
baptism, till which period he remained in the 
obscurity of private life," &c. See Works, 
vol. i, p. 372. 

At thirty years of age the priests were 
" washed with water," and " anointed with oil," 
Exod. xxix, 4, 7, and Lev. viii, 6, 10-12. So 
we find that Christ, at the age of thirty, was 
washed of John at Jordan, and " anointed with 
the Holy Ghost ;" and John said, " I knew him 
not, but he that sent me to baptize said. Upon 
whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descend 
and light upon him, he it is that baptizeth with 
the Holy Ghost " 

I suppose Mr. B. will hardly say that while 
Jesus stood upon the bank of Jordan the Spirit 
immersed him; (when the text says, "It de- 
scended upon him like a dove," John i, 32, 33 ;) 
as there is nothing said here about a wind, or 
sound, filling all out of doors. Tkose who talk 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 149 

/ SO much of " following Christ down to Jordan," 
/ and are perpetually troubling the weak, but 
sincere believer in Jesus, about being immersed 
in imitation of Christ's example, ought to recol- 
lect that he was circumcised as well as bap- 
tized, and that after his baptism he fasted forty 
days and nights, and had a severe rencontre 
with the great adversary of God and man, be- 
fore he entered upon the discharge of the func- 
tions of his high office. They should recollect 
also that he regularly kept the Jewish passover, 
and his disciples also kept it with him ; he also 
washed their feet, and said to them, " Do to one 
another as I have done to you." Those who 
would receive the baptism which Christ re- 
ceived from John, (even if this were possible,) 
would need rebaptizing, in order to be initiated 
into the Christian church ; for we have the 
authority of St. Paul, Acts xix, and of that dis- 
tinguished Baptist preacher^ Robert Hall, of 
England, for saying that John's was not the 
Christian baptism. His words are, as quoted 
in the first part of this discussion, ''No rite 
celebrated at that time (i. e., during John's mi- 
nistry) is entitled to a place among Christian 
sacraments, since they did not commence with 
the Christian dispensation." — Hall's Works, 
vol. i, p. 372. Now if our Baptist friends will 
insist that they must go to the water, and do as 
Jesus did, (i. e., receive John's baptism,) we 
cannot go with them, for we cannot consent to 
abandon our right to an interest in the Christian 
dispensation. Hear the words of our Master, 



150 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

Luke vii, 28 : " Among those that are born of 
women, there is not a greater prophet than John 
the Baptist ; but he that is least in the kingdom 
of God is greater than heT And Mr. Hall says, 
that " the phrase kingdom of God is constantly 
used to denote that state of things under the 
administration of the Messiah." See as above. 

He, therefore, who would forsake the king- 
dom OF God, or Christian church, and go 
back to John at Jordan, under the fanciful idea 
of following Christ, might, with equal propriety^ 
have his male children circumcised at eight 
days old, and constantly keep the Jewish pass- 
over ; for he could plead the example of Christ 
in honouring these institutions also. 

But I shall be told that the Scriptures say, 
" And straightway coming up out of the water, 
he saw the heavens opened," Mark i, 10. It is 
said in Matt, iii, 16, " And Jesus, when he was 
baptized, loent up straightway out of the ^ater." 
In both these places the Greek word gtto is 
used, the first sense of w^hich, according to 
Parkhurst's Lexicon, is " from ;" so we see 
that nothing can be fairly made out from his 
case to show that even the manner in which he 
received the ordinance was by plunging. His 
coming up, and going up, show nothing for im- 
mersion ; because they imply action, whereas in 
immersion the subject is always passive. 

We must now call the attention of the candid 
reader to the favourite argument of our differing 
brethren, drawn from a fanciful interpretation 
of Rom. vi, 4, " Therefore we are buried with 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 151 

him by baptism into death," &c., and Col. ii, 
12. Mr. B., Sermon, p. 10, seems to consider 
this allusion of the apostle as a most conclusive 
argument for the mode of baptism by immersion. 
He says, *^ I pause to admire the wisdom of the 
Most High, in putting it into the mind of his 
inspired servant to describe the ordinance of 
baptism by so familiar an allusion. Let the 
learned, my brethren, dispute about the mean- 
ing of Greek verbs and prepositions, you all 
understand what a burial is, and if Paul called 
baptism a burial^ you will easily decide whether 
he meant sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.^ 
Query — Did any of Mr. B.'s hearers or readers 
ever witness a burial where the body was dipped 
or plunged in the earth 1 I dare say they have 
witnessed many where the body had the earth 
SPRINKLED OR POURED UPON IT. It is casy for 
those who do not think much to be led away 
with the sound of a word ; but I hope better 
things of you, intelligent reader. 

There are several serious difficulties which 
lie against this fanciful argument for immersion : 
1st. Although Mr. B. says St. Paul " describes it 
by an allusion^^^ (rather a strange method of de- 
scription, by the way, and that, too, in a matter 
where he says, " We may expect to find the 
word of God very explicit upon the subject,** 
Sermon, p. 6,) yet in all the four gospels, in 
all that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ ever 
said with regard to baptism, there is not one 
solitary intimation that the ordinance had any 
reference to a burial; either to the burial and 



152 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

resurrection of Christy or any other. Again : in 
all the Acts of the Apostles, in all that they 
said, from time to time, on the subject of bap- 
tism, there is no such allusion ; nor is there in 
the Epistles, except in the two passages above 
referred to. 2d. That St. Paul has reference 
to the mode of literal baptism in these passages 
is exceedingly doubtful ; because no such idea 
was given him at his own baptism by Ananias, 
as that he was to " arise and be baptized, to 
represent the burial and resurrection of Christ.^^ 
On the contrary, he said, "Arise and be bap- 
tized, and WASH away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." He was taught, then, to 
consider baptism as representing the wash- 
ing away of sins, and not to consider it as re- 
presenting a grave, the place of loathsomeness 
and corruption. 

The fine idea that we hear so often advanced 
about the " liquid grave, ''^ the " expressive rite,^ 
the " watery tomh,^^ &c., is a modern invention, 
and has no authority from the word of God. 
Who can see any resemblance between a man 
wading into a creek or river up to his waist or 
armpits, and another dipping the rest of his 
body under water, and the laying away of the 
body of Jesus in a sepulchre, above ground, 
hewn out of a solid rock, there to remain three 
days ? Jonah's being three days and nights in 
the belly of the fish, was the sign of the burial 
and resurrection of Christ ; hence Jesus told the 
Jews, " There shall no other sign be given you 
but the sign of the prophet Jonah ;" and yet our 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 153 

Baptist friends will have it that baptism was, 
and is, the sign or representation of Christ'' s 
burial and resurrection. 

But, reader, their practice is at war with their 
theory; for if, as they say, baptism does reallT/ 
represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
then they should not require persons to be 
baptized before they admit them to the Lord's 
supper ; because in this they require them to 
show forth the burial and resurrection of Christ 
before they allow them to obey the command 
of Jesus, in showing forth his passion and death 
in the sacred supper. They' thus reverse the 
order of those important facts, and show the 
Lord^s resurrection before his death, I have to 
urge against this interpretation, 3d. That it 
proves too much ; for if, " being buried," in the 
passage, alludes to the mode of baptism, then 
so does " being planted, or grafted, in the like- 
ness of his death," allude to the mode of bap- 
tism ; for the subject is the same in verses 5 
and 6 as in verse 4. And " being crucified" 
also must refer to the mode. In the passage 
in Colossians, the " rising with him" spoken of 
is said to be " through the faith of the operation 
of God." We can see no good sense in which 
it can be said, a man rises in baptism " through 
faith:' 

If any thing in these passages can be shown 
to allude to the mode of baptism, then partial 
immersion, as " planting," or using the sign of 
the cross, has as much evidence in their favour 
as immersion. In conclusion, we are of opinion 



154 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

that these passages refer to the spiritual baptism 
spoken of in the word of God, 1 Cor. xii, 13, 
" For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles ;" and 
we have seen that the " one Spirit" is adminis- 
tered, hy pouring, fallmg upon, &c. The pas- 
sage may be considered as referring to the 
mighty energies of the vSpirit of God, whereby 
the believer is regenerated, " crucified with 
Christ," " planted in the likeness of his death;'* 
and if haptism literally is referred to at all, it is 
only as the instrumental cause, the initiating 
rite, by which w^ enter the church, where by 
profession we are, and in fact ought to be, 
" dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God 
through Jesus Christ." If our Baptist friends 
will insist still that the mode of baptism by im- 
mersion is referred to. and that the ordinance 
is intended to represent the burial and resur- 
rection of Christ, I have two questions to ask : 
1st. If the rite was intended to represent these 
two things, how did it come to pass that the 
disciples were so ignorant of the doctrine of 
Christ's resurrection up to the eve of his cruci- 
fixion, that *' they wondered what the rising from 
the dead should mean T' 2d. If this ordinance 
has been instituted to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, then we ask, Where is 
the Christian rite that is the emblem of moral 
purity ? Christianity has but two sacraments — 
baptism and the Lord's supper ; the first, em- 
blematical of the '' vSpirit's" influences, and the 
second commemorative of the breaking of the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 155 

body, and the shedding of the blood, of the Son 
of God. Blood and water came forth from 
the pierced side of Jesus, emblematical of atone- 
ment and of purity. ''By water we are purified^ 
and pardoned hy his blood. ^^ " There are three 
that bear witness in earth ; the Spirit, the water, 
and the blood ; and these three agree in owe," 
1 John V, 8. I consider this text as referring 
to the Spirit of God, the water of baptism, and 
the blood of Jesus, all agreeing in one mode of 
administration; and that is sprinkling or pouring. 
Mr. B. says, Sermon, p. 27, " Baptism does 
not necessarily include the idea of water at all. 
We might baptize with meal, with oil, with 
honey, with sand ; the question is. What action 
constitutes baptism ?" Query — Could a man be 
immersed in sand? Sand or meal might be 
poured or sprinkled on the subject, but the 
'* action^'' as he calls it, could never be dipping 
or plunging. The word " baptizo," as it occurs 
in Mark vii, 4, 5, with regard to the washing 
of hands, cups, tables, &c., cannot be inter- 
preted as signifying the action of dipping only : 
for though their hands and cups might have 
been dipped, yet surely they did not wash or 
baptize their " brazen vessels ^^^ and " tables ^^^ or 
" couches," by immersion. 
^ We now notice the argument from antiquity. 
Mr. B. thinks that the practice of the " ancient 
churcK^ shows the " pattern" of baptism, and he 
quotes Mosheim and Robinson, Sermon, p. 41, 
to prove that the pattern was by immersion. 
That immersion was practised in the second 



156 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

century, and for some time subsequent, we 
firmly believe. The Baptist argument on this 
point runs thus : " The Baptists practise im- 
mersion, and so did the ancient church ; and, 
therefore, so did John the Baptist and the 
apostles." This to them is demonstration. But 
stop, reader, we must look a little at this argu- 
ment. The primitive church, in this mode of 
arguing, is made the connecting link between 
the New Testament times and our own. Let us 
now try another argument. In the primitive 
church, the people were immersed naked, both 
men and women ; therefore John and the apos- 
tles immersed people naked ; therefore the Bap- 
tists ought to immerse people naked. Again : 
The primitive church gave milk and honey to 
the baptized, and used unction ; so did John the 
Baptist and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. 
Again : The primitive church baptized infants, 
so did John and the apostles, so ought the Bap- 
tists. If our friends should object to my insist- 
ing on the argument being thus pushed to its 
consequences, I must contend, if the pattern is 
to be found in the second century, they mast 
not alter that pattern : for Mr. B. says. Sermon, 
p. 6, " Unless the plan laid down in the pattern 
is implicitly pursued^ the thing required is not 
performed at all.''^ I will prove by Mr. B.'s 
witness, (and he will tell the truth in this mat- 
ter, no doubt, as he is a Baptist,) that the an- 
cients gave the ordinance, the subjects being 
in a state of nudity. " The primitive Christians 
baptized naked. There is no ancient historical 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 157 

fact better authenticated than this." — Robinson's 
History of Baptism, p. 85. Wail says, " The 
ancient Christians, when they were baptized by 
immersion, were all baptized naked ; whether 
they were men, women, or children. They 
thought it better represented the putting off the 
old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on 
the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, 
they judged that it should be the washing of 
the body, not of tJie clothes T — Wall, chap, xv, 
part 2. So they understood the pattern. If it 
were necessary, we could produce an abun- 
dance of testimony to confirm this point. And 
I leave it to the intelligent reader to judge, 
whether they received this pattern " in the 
mount,^^ or whether it was the offspring of su- 
perstition. Religion, like the Saviour, is often 
placed between two thieves — Superstition on 
the right hand, and Atheism on the left. The 
one makes a puppet of her, sets her out in 
gaudy attire, and mars her native beauty ; the 
other strips her naked of her vestments, and 
exposes her to the scorn and contempt of the 
world. But let these men esteem her as they 
list, she is nevertheless the fair daughter of the 
Almighty, the queen of heaven, and beauty of 
the whole earth. And it is known to all that 
read and think, that human nature has always 
been prone to add to the simple ceremonies 
of Christianity. Imposing ordinances are no 
proof of the genuineness of a religion, under the 
gospel, where " the true worshippers worship 
the Father in spirit and in truth." 



158 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

The Baptists very often are found vaunting 
about the uniformity of their views and prac- 
tice ; they will tell you that they have always 
rejected " infant baptism," and always practised 
immersion. If the reader will attend, I will give 
him a fact or two from a Baptist writer that will 
prove a small drawback upon these high preten- 
sions. In Benedict's History of the Baptists, 
vol. i, pp. 150-152, it is said, "The American 
Mennonites have adopted pourings instead of im" 
mersion, and it is probable that many^ and I 
know not but most^ of the European Mennonites 
have done the same." The reader will bear in 
mind that these Baptists have been a numerous 
sect, in the Netherlands, Upper Saxony, Prus- 
sia, Russia, Poland, France, &c., &c., and their 
leader, or founder, Menno, who died in 1561, 
asserted that " dipping was the only baptism 
acceptable to God." "• The Dutch Baptists," 
says Benedict, " held to dipping believers at 
first ; they still retain the subjects of the ordi- 
nance, but, by a surprising change, some, I 
know not how many, have departed from the 
apostolic mode." It is surely very surprising 
that so many Baptists should depart from the 
apostolic pattern, if cold bathing is as convenient, 
pleasant^ and healthy as Mr. Broaddus seems to 
think it. Sermon, p. 40, and Strictures, p. 22, 
he says, " It often proves beneficial to heaUh," 
&c. If it could be shown that God has said. 
All men who are to be baptized must be im- 
mersed, then there should be no demurring; 
and although Mr. B. has again and again begged 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 159 

the question, without proving the position, we 
are still of the opinion that those Baptists who 
have given up immersion, and adopted pouring, 
have acted wisely. 

We must now say a word on the question of 
the validity of the ordinance, as administered by 
those who have never been immersed. Nothing 
is more common than for our differing brethren 
to object, when we administer the rite by immer^ 
sio7i. We do not consider it " the most epccelleiit 
way,^^ but if any prefer that mode, and we cannot 
convince them that pouring is the better mode, 
we immerse them ; and consider that we have 
given as valid baptism as Elder B. could give. 
I have sometimes asked our Baptist friends, if 
the validity of the ordinance rests upon the 
qualifications of the administrator, or other- 
wise ; but I have not found them at all agreed 
in opinion on that point. If the reader will 
consult Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i, 
p. 475, he will discover that the first Baptist 
church in this country was founded or planted 
by Roger Williams, in the year 1639, in Provi- 
dence, Rhode Island. Mr. Benedict gives the 
following account of this matter : " Being settled 
in this place, which, from the kindness of God 
to them, they called Providence, Mr. Williams, 
and those with him, considered the importance 
of gospel union, and were desirous of forming 
themselves into a church, but met with a con- 
siderable obstruction ; they were convinced of 
the nature and design of believers' baptism by 
immersion, but, from a variety of circumstances, 



160 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

had hitherto been prevented from submission. 
To obtain a suitable administrator was a matter 
of consequence : at length, the candidates for 
communion nominated and appointed Mr. Eze- 
kiel Holliman, a man of gifts and piety, to bap- 
tize Mr. Williams ; and who, in return, baptized 
Mr, Holliman and the other ten." Here is the 
origin of the Baptists in these United States ; 
and here was a church, that was no church at 
all, according to the opinion of many of the 
Baptists. Mr. Holliman did not pretend to be 
either a minister or a baptized believer, but he 
was appointed to give believers^ baptism to Mr. 
Williams, and then Mr. W. gave believers' bap- 
tism to him and the other ten. 

The intelligent reader may see with what 
consistency the Baptists attempt to invalidate 
the ordinance as administered by us, even 
when immersion is the mode. Although they 
may attempt to disguise it, yet there are several 
circumstances which go to show that they cou' 
sider the ordinance given by any but a Baptist 
preacher as being no baptism at all. 

1st. They wall not admit any such to the 
Lord's table among them. 

2d. If any such offer to join their church, 
they do not receive them unless they rebaptize 
them ; and 

3d. If a Methodist minister gives the ordi- 
nance by immersion, they generally hear of the 
murmurings of the Baptists : " You have no 
right to give it," say they; ^^you donH believe in 
ity'^ &c. But here we have a Baptist church 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 161 

without believers* baptism ; and who knows 
how many of the present race of Baptist preach- 
ers descended from that^r^^ cLurch? 

Query — Are their ministrations more valid 
than Mr. Holliman's, if they happen to be in, 
this branch of the succession, as he could give 
Mr. Williams nothing that he did not himself 
possess, and as he (Mr. W.) had received na 
valid baptism, he could give none to the rest ? 

This they supposed was the pattern, and they 
practised the " laying on ofhands^^ in that church 
after baptism, as did many others in the early 
part of their history in this country. Now it 
was hardly modest in Mr. Benedict, in view of 
this case, in his own church to attempt to ridicule 
the practice of the Catholics in appointing lay- 
men to administer baptism to cliildren, or sick 
people, in cases of emergency. 

I have not given this case with any design 
to invalidate the ordinance as practised by the 
Baptists ; but to let them and the public know, 
that their boasting about the superiority of the 
ordinance as administered by them, and the 
idea they put forth about the identity of their 
doings, in a literal conformity to all the circum- 
stances of a "positive institute," are frivo^ 
lous and vain. 

While they attempt to unchurch their neigh- 
bours, whose claim to piety is as good as their 
own, by representing them as the " disobedient 
children" of God, and saying in their confes- 
sion of faith, chap, xxvii, p. 29, Alexandria edi- 
tion, 1833, '' A visible, or gospel church, consists 
U 



162 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

of those who have believed, been baptized by 
IMMERSION, given themselves to the Lord, and 
to each other, as required in the divine word." 
They ought not to complain if their errors and 
bigotry, at least, are '' handled without gloves." 

We have shown, we think, in the course of 
this argument on the mode of baptism, — 

1st. That '^ no law of baptism' can be found 
in the Greek word ^aTr^ro, and that the opinion 
of ]\Ir. B. and Dr. Carson, about its mpaning 
imjnersion only, is contradicted by critics and 
lexicographers ; by Professor Stuart, Mr. Wes- 
ley, and Dr. Clarke ; and, what is of more 
weight still, by John the Baptist, by Jesus 
Christ, by St. Peter, and by St. Paul,' one of 
the best scholars of his time. Does not the 
candid reader think that St. Paul understood 
Greek as well as the corrupt Greek Church ? 
W^e have shown, 

2d. That Mr. B. has miserably abused his 
Pedobaptist witnesses ; and that he has more 
than insinuated that Kinsr James, the bishops, 
and translators, formed a conspiracy against the 
truth, in giving the world the common version 
of the Scriptures, without translating the Greek 
Avord so as to mean immersion only. We have 
vindicated the translators, and shown that they 
followed the common custom pursued by Lu- 
ther, the Latin and French translators, and also 
by Mr. George Campbell. And in this they 
followed the Spirit of God, shown in the case 
of the Lord's supper, where the Hebrew word 
*" pesacJi' is retained by the inspired >vTiters of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 163 

the New Testament in the Greek word pascJia, 
We hare shown, 

3d. That if the meaning of the icord used in 
a positive institute is to furnish the law and fix 
all the circumstances of its observances, then, 
in the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's 
supper, we ought to eat a full meal, for the word 
used in 1 Cor. xi, 20, to designate that ordi- 
nance, is SsiTTvov, supper, which, among the 
Greeks, the learned tell us, was the word used, 
not only for a full ineal, but for the pi^incipal 
meol. Yet our Baptist brethren think they have 
taken the sacrament of the supper, really 
and fully, when they have taken a little piece 
of bread, and have sipped of wine. Why cannot 
baptism be performed with a little water? 
In this part of the argument I have shown also 
the futility of Mr. B.'s fanciful notion about 
positive institutes. 

4th. That the divers baptisms among the 
Jews, appointed of God, were performed by 
^'-sprinkling the unclean,^^ and that applying wa- 
ter for purification, wdiere ^n adininisirator and 
a subject were found, was iiever by hnmersion, 

5th. That it is highly improbable that John 
could have baptized, by immersion, the hundreds 
of thousands that came to his baptism, and that 
the Jordan and the " much rvater'^ w^ere wanted 
for purposes other than dipping. 

Gth. That the baptism which took place in 
private houses, and in the prison, and in the 
temple, cannot be made, by any fair dealing, to 
favour immersion. And I am strengthened in 



164 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

this view by what Mr. Benedict says about the 
MennoTiites learning to baptize by pouring, 
*' where they made proselytes in prison.^^ 
Query — Where were the ^' tanks, ''^ '^baths,^^ and 
" hogsheads" for immersion, which abounded 
so much in the days of the apostles ? Had 
modern prisons none of them ? 

7th. We have shown that the baptism of the 
Spirit was by " pouring," " falling upon," 
&c., and that Mr. B., in order to evade this 
argument, has run into the egregious mistake 
of making " the rushing wind," and " sound," 
or echo, that filled the house, to be the Spirit 
of God, " overwhelming the disciples." And 
we have shown also, that when it came down 
upon Cornelius and his company, it was shed 
forth, without an accompanying wind or sound. 
And that on Christ it came descending " like a 
dove:' 

8th. We have shown also that, in every case 
of baptism recorded in the New Testament, the 
ordinance was given without delay, whether it 
were night or day ; and that there is a total 
absence of evidence that any person ever moved 
or walked so much as one hundred yards 

FROM THE PLACE OF PREACHING IN ORDER TO 
receive THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. Let the 

reader compare this with what takes place in 
modern times. Who ever, in our day, hears of 
a baptism by immersion, without hearing also 
that Elder A. B. or G. went from such a meeting 
house to such a creek, run, or river, to adminis- 
ter baptism to C. D. or F. There is no such 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 165 

thing in the New Testament. John was at 
Jordan, and Enon, and "in the wilderness," 
but these were his places for preaching. And 
in the same chapel where he preached there he 
gave the ordinance. 

9th. We have shown that nothing can be 
determined with certainty, from Romans and 
Colossians, with regard to the mode of baptism, 
from the allusion of the apostle to burying ; as 
the text equally refers to '^ planting''' and ^^cru- 
cijixion^ as to " burying,^'' and the text has a 
higher and more important allusion. And that 
a burial is never performed by dipping or 
plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling the dust 
upon the coffin. And that the Baptists greatly 
err when they make baptism represent the 
BURIAL and resurrection of Christ, instead 
of the washing away of moral impurity, by the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Thus, in 
order to support a theory, they wrest one 
of the Christian sacraments from its proper 
place, and make it the representative of that to 
which the great Lawgiver never appointed it. 
With all their clamour about " the liquid grave" 
and " the significant rite," many of them have 
yet to learn the nature and meaning of Chris- 
tian BAPTISM. 

10th. We have shown that the idea of follow- 
ing Christ in John's baptism is more specious 
than Scriptural, as Christ's baptism was pecu- 
liar, and as John did not give Christian baptism 
to his followers, being the minister of an inferior 
dispensation. 



166 OBLIGATION, bUBJECTS, AND 

lltli. We have shown, that if the Baptists 
will insist on deriving the evidence of immer- 
sion from the ancient church in the second, 
third, and fourth centuries, and will attempt to 
prove thereby that immersion was the " apos- 
tolic pattern," then they must take the conse- 
quences, and believe that the apostles, the 
ministers of a religion scrupulously modesty bap- 
tized men and w^omen " naked as Adam and 
Eve" before they fell, and that they used salt^ 
milk and honey, oil, immersion three times, white 
garments for the baptized, &c., &c.; as this was 
the pattern of the ancient church, according to 
Wall, Robinson, and others. The practice of 
immersing people with their clothes on is a 
modern invention, about as far from the " pat- 
tern of the ancient church'^ as is our mode by 
pouring. For if baptism is a w\ashing, as the 
ancients considered it, then we should consider 
it rather a novel, senseless thing to see a man 
attempting to wash his feet with his shoes and 
stockings on, or his hands with his gloves on. 
They built baptisteries, to be sure, and endea- 
voured to work by this pattern ; but when they 
found that this cldld of superstition could not 
be maintained without scandalous occurrences 
taking place in them, (see Miller on Baptism, 
p. 105,) the true friends of religion laid aside 
the practice of baptism by inmiersion upon 
naked subjects, as the Mennonites have the 
practice of dipping altogether. x\nd that the 
administration of the ordinance among our 
Baptist friends now is attended with serious 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 167 

difficulties, is evident from the fact that we hear 
more said about " taking up the cross^^ in bap- 
tism than in taking up aU otJier crosses; and 
we know that great alai'm and perturhation of 
spirit often accompanies the administration, in 
the case of females especially, which renders 
devotional feelings out of the question, at least 
for the moment. We speak not from theory^ 
but from the undoubted testimony of the parties 
concerned. 

In conclusion, we remark, that as Christ, in 
applying water to the feet of his disciples, gave 
Peter to understand that this partial application 
of the water indicated an interest in the 
Saviour, so we conclude that the application 
of water by pouring or sprinkling it on the 
head, {a much more vital and noble part than 
the feet,) in the name of the Father, Son, and 
HoLv Ghost, answers all the purposes of the 
ordinance, and is valid Christian baptism. 



A FURTHER APPEAL, 
BY H. SLICER, 

IX REPLY TO 

THE TWENTY-ONE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HLM BY 
:.LR. BROADDUS. 



" Speaking the xRrTH in love.*'— .St. Paui. 

" Tbvth, like light, always trarels in straight lines." — Laeon, 

Candid reader! to you, and not to Mr. B., 
shall I address myself in the review of these 
letters. I have the consolation to know that, 
although the advocate of Pedobaptist views may 
be treak. the cause is stroncr, and rests not upon 
the talents or ingenuity of any man, however 
skilled in argument. 

It would be as fair to infer the incorrectness 
of the views of Baptists from the evil practices 
and visionary theories of ^luntzer and the Ger- 
man Anabaptists, as for Mr. B. to attempt so 
far to connect me with the Pedobaptist views 
as to infer their weakness and unsoundness from 
"what he is pleased to consider my misrepre- 
sentations of his arguments. For the intelligent 
leader will perceive that the gentleman arro- 
gates to himself and his views, not only all the 
€trgum€nt, but all the Scripture authorities also. 
Hear him, page 13 : "I do not blame you, sir, 
for not producing any argument in favour of 
your theory; for arguments there are none, in 



OBllGATION, ETC., OF BAPTISM. 169 

the wide compass of creation, to prove that 
infants are proper subjects of gospel baptism " 
This is only one of many broad declarations, 
unsupported by proof, contained in his letters. 
The reader will perceive, from the above quota- 
tion, how little hope is to be entertained of 
maiving any impression upon men who claim to 
have in possession all the argument in " the 
wide compass of creation!^ on the subject of 
Christian baptism. 

What I have written in the following pages 
is designed for those who have intelligence and 
candour sufficient, at least, to admit that they 
are not too wise to learn, or too knowing to be 
taught something more on the subject of this 
solemn and important ordinance ; and who will 
weigh in the balances of impartial judgment 
what may be advanced, convinced that the cause 
of truth can never suffer by investigation. 

Some of these letters I shall notice ; others 
I shall barely allude to, as I have answered the 
points contained in them at length in the first 
"Appeal," and I cannot consent to waste either 
my own time, or the reader's, in repeating over 
those parts of my argument which Mr. B. has 
not seen fit to attempt to answer. It was my 
aim, in the first reply to him, to condense the 
matter as much as possible ; this I shall still 
keep in view, convinced that the strength of an 
argument does not consist in the use of many 
words, but in " words fitly spoken." 

Mr. Broaddus sets out by professing to have 
no other object in view " than to maintain the 



170 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

purity of onr Lord's institutions," and yet it is 
manifest, in his "note to the reader," and 
throughout his twenty-one letters, that the vin- 
dication of his own reputation^ which he consi- 
dered imphcated, gave him more concern than 
anything else involved in the controversy; and 
he has fallen upon the strange expedient of 
proving himself innocent of mutilating, by an at- 
tempt to prove me guilty; with how much suc- 
cess the candid reader will be able to discern. 

In his first letter, page 5, he acknowledges 
that I had offered "to meet any minister^ or 
layman, in the bounds of my district," and yet, 
although he was fairly included in the offer, he 
says " he had received no oifer from me." 

Then, fearing, I suppose, that his language 
was somewhat contradictory, he adds : " But I 
will be candid enough to acknowledge, that if 
you had formally challenged me to an oral dis- 
cussion, I should have declined it, for several 
reasons." He then gives three reasons, which 
may have satisfied that gentleman's understand- 
ing and conscience, but the flimsy character of 
which, I doubt not, the discerning public will 
discover. I will here set down his reasons. 
He says : " In the first place, common fame 
had informed me that you were naturally of a 
temperament which must render a debate with 
you very disagreeable to a man of ordinary 
sensibility." I had previously learned, indeed, 
that the gentleman had given the above reason 
to some person or persons privately, but I could 
not fully credit it at the time. I thought, how- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 171 

ever, if that was his private reason, he would 
hardly so far forget himself as to put it in print ; 
thus publicly sinning against the law of " that 
charity which covereth a multitude of sins ;" 
" taking up a reproach against his neighbour," 
even though " common fame'''' might have laid it 
doivn at his feet. " Common fame'^ once said 
of Him that was pure and spotless, "He hath 
a devil, and is mad, why hear ye him ?" — " He 
stirreth up the people" — " He speaketh blas- 
phemies," &c. It is enough for the servant that 
he fare as his Lord. As Mr. B. would have it 
understood that he is conversant with that book 
that gives " correction in righteousness,^^ he will, 
perhaps, upon reflection, see his error ; and 
may, perchance, perceive that it is hardly 
modest to talk of the temperament of others, 
while his letters give such fearful evidence of 
a mixture of the sanguine and choleric in his 
own. If he will look at the " Course of Time," 
book viii, he may possibly learn a lesson from 
the Christian poet that will be of service to him 
in future. Of " common fame," Pollok says : 

'* She was so infamous for lies, 
That he, who of lier sayings, on his creed, 
The fewest enter'd, was deem'd wisest man." 

Secondly ; Mr. B. says, " I doubted whether 
I should be able, amid the exciting circum- 
stances of a public debate, to present my own 
views of the subject in a proper spirit." So 
it seems he was afraid of himself as well as of 
me. As he has thus referred to himself, I may 



172 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

be permitted to close this point by saying, he 
thought, no doubt, a spark of my fire might 
possibly fall into his tinder-box, and that the 
effect might be disastrous to his own cause. 
" Prudence is the better part of valour ;" and 
he that knows he carries a powder magazine 
about him does well to keep at a respectful 
distance from sparks. So much for his second 
reason. 

Thirdly, he was afraid to trust the people 
with an oral argument, thinking they would not 
be able to judge of its strength. In this, at 
least, we should have been equal, as they could 
have judged of the argument from his lips, as 
well as from mine. 

I regret the necessity of noticing these things, 
rather foreign from the merits of the contro- 
versy ; as they may be deemed somewhat per- 
sonal in their nature. 

The attempt Mr. B. makes, in his first letter, 
to show that the passage in the nineteenth 
chapter of Acts does not furnish evidence that 
JohrCs baptism differed from Christian baptis??i 
is truly a lame attempt. How changeable are 
the vieAVS of those w^ho contend for immersion 
as the exclusive mode ! The old Anabaptists 
used to quote this passage to sustain them in 
rebaptizing. But now Mr. B. seems to suspect 
that possibly they were not rebaptized at all. 
He says, " Many eminent men have very plau- 
sibly contended that Paul did not rebaptize 
them." 

" Plausible" as their views are in his judg- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 173 

ment, he is not able to make up his mind yet to 
contradict the plain narrative of St. Lnke, but 
supposes, without any shadow of evidence to 
support him, that there was some defect in the 
baptism which the twelve disciples at Ephesus 
had received, although John's baptism itself 
was not defective. He says, that " various 
reasons might be assigned for their being re- 
baptized, without, in the smallest degree, dis- 
crediting John's as Christian baptism." But 
the " various reasons*'' turn out to be one only, 
and that so meagre as to be unsupported by 
any evidence— ^merely a creation of Mr. B.'s 
own imagination ! First, he has to suppose 
that those persons were baptized by some of 
John's disciples; secondly, that those disciples 
of John had not heard of the recent commission 
given to the disciples of Christ ; and thirdly, 
that the twelve, at Ephesus, were baptized with 
a defective baptism, being taught to believe on 
a Saviour yet to come. 

Now, candid reader, all this in Mr. B. is 
perfectly gratuitous, for there is not a word of 
it in the chapter. He might become a believer 
in infant baptism, if it would suit him, by a 
much smaller exercise of his guessing capacity. 
For instance, in the case of the children men- 
tioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who were 
taken in the Saviour's arms, if he would only 
be willing to suppose one thing instead of three, 
and say, " possibly" they were baptized, as well 
as blessed, then we should have him an advo- 
cate for infant baptism. The intelligent reader 



174 OBLIGATIOX, SlT.]i:C;TS, AND 

will perceive how convenient a thing our oppo- 
nents sometimes find an inference to be in help- 
ing them out of a difficulty. 

On page 8, Mr. B. makes another effort to 
prove that ^' there never was a visible church 
of Christ in existence, until he came and made 
arrangements himself for discerning, by means 
of ordinances, between the righteous and the 
wicked." Here, gentle reader, is a new w^ay 
of discerning *• between the precious and the 
vile." " Ordinances !" — I suppose he means 
baptism and the Lord's supper ! ! Was there 
ever a case known, since the opening of the 
gospel dispensation, in which, by means of these 
ordinances, it was discerned that an individual 
was an unworthy member of the church of 
Christ ? Did ever the ordinances distinguish, in 
the Baptist Church, between the righteous and 
the wicked ? Mr. B. says in his Dialogue, page 
117, that " Elder G. and all his churches have 
been excluded from the Baptist denomination, 
in consequence of Ms immorality .'^^ Was this 
immorality discerned hy means of ordinances ? 
On the same page he gives us the true mode 
of discerning, where he speaks of an influential 
" individual, lohose conduct has proved him to be 
an unworthy member of the church.''^ So, after 
all, it seems that the Baptists judge of people, 
not by the ** ordinances^'' but by '' their conduct ;" 
just as the apostles judged of Judas, Demas, 
Simon the sorcerer, and the incestuous Co- 
rinthian ; and just as the priests and ministers 
did under the .Jewish dispensation. Mr. B. says, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 175 

page 8, " No rules were prescribed, under the 
former dispensation, by which to separate the 
(wicked) from the privileges of those that were 
worthy." We will appeal from this statement 
" to the law and the testimony,*' Exod. xii, 15 : 
" For whosoever eateth leavened bread, from 
the first day until the seventh day, that soul 
shall be cut off from Israel." Num. ix, 13: 
" But the man that is clean, &c., and forbeareth 
to keep the passover, even the same soul shall 
he cut off from his peojole — that man shall hear 
his sin.^' 

See Lev. xxiv, 10-23, and Deut. xxix, 21. 
These are a few of the many passages which 
go to show that the church, under the former 
dispensation, was not that promiscuous assem- 
bly of wicked and righteous persons, in the 
enjoyment of equal privileges, that Mr. B. seems 
to think it was ; but that it was under a rigid 
discipline, " separating the precious from the 
viler 

The Baptists suppose, because they have 
been baptized by immersion, that therefore they 
have a mark upon them by which they are dis- 
tinguished from others ; whereas no one could 
discern from the fact of their having been bap- 
tized once, or twenty times, that they were 
w^orthy members of the visible church of Christ. 
They might be " washed only to fouler stains," 
so that after all Mr. B. says abont ''''discerning 
hy ordinances'^ is a mere fancy of his own. 

My argument for the unity of the church of 
the true God stands unshaken by any thing I 



176 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

have yet seen from Mr. B. God never had but 
one churchy and will never have less or more. 

The illustration from Rom. xi, which I used 
to show the unity of the churchy seems rather to 
have thrown Mr. B. into a difficulty. " By the 
root, sap, and fatness of the olive tree," he says, 
" no doubt the apostle intends the means of 
grace with which they (the Jewish nation) had 
so long been blessed. Such only as believed 
retained these blessings, and, by the new order 
of things which Christ had instituted, were 
united with Gentile believers in partaking of 
them. Here was a visible church of ChristT — 
Page 9. Now, observe, according to this re- 
presentation, the visible church of Christ enjoys 
the '^ means of grace ^^^ which the Jewish nation 
formerly possessed. And the apostle, also, 
says, that when the Jews return from their un- 
belief, " they shall be grafted into their own olive 
treeP In this passage, Mr. B. fairly admits that 
the believing Jews remained in the possession 
of their privileges, and that the Gentiles were 
incorporated with them. And he says, I may 
call the Jewish establishment '* a typical church, 
or a national church, but not a visible church 
of Jesus Christ." Reader, was not one of the 
privileges which they enjoyed (which he calls 
" means of grace") the right of dedicating their 
infant offspring to the true God, in an initiatory 
rite ? Now, although Mr. B. acknowledges that 
the root and fatness still remain the same to 
those that believed, he will have it that the 
believing parent and the child are deprived of a 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 177 

privilege which had been long enjoyed. And 
the anomaly is presented of a mother, a part of 
whose sons have been recognised as church 
members by circumcision, while those born to 
her, after her reception of the Messiah, are left, 
so far as any outward sign or rite is concerned, 
in as outcast a condition as the children of her 
heathen neighbours. And this, too, under a 
dispensation of increased light and enlarged 
privileges HI 

On page 13, Mr. B. attempts to render my 
argument ridiculous. After cutting the sentence 
in two, (the old trade,) putting a period where I 
had put a comma, so as to make it appear that 
the quotation was a whole sentence, and also 
leaving out a note of interrogation in the begin- 
ning of the paragTaph, he says, " Singular rea- 
soning, truly /" — did any man ever hear before 
of such an argument ? Mr. B. had said, " We 
know that Esau and Ishmael, and others, de- 
scendants of Abraham, were rejected from the 
covenant of salvation by Jesus Christ," — and I 
asked. How can he know this ? when, accord- 
ing to his own showing, the covenant of salva- 
tion was not offered to them, and the only cove- 
nant of which they knew any thing was purely 
of a temporal nature. I still ask. Where is it 
written that they were excluded from the cove- 
nant of salvation 1 

The gentleman, after taking the liberties 
stated above with what I had said, complains 
exceedingly, on the same page, that I had at- 
tempted*, in quoting him, to make him appear 
12 



178 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

ridiculous in the eyes of my readers ; and says, 
" This seems to be a favourite method with 
him," (me.) And after preparing the reader for 
a display of the very unfair manner in which I 
had treated him. he sets down two passages in 
parallel columns, and invites the reader to com- 
pare them. I have compared them again and 
again, without seeing that they differ at all in 
the sense. Thinking, perhaps, I might not be 
able myself to see so clearly in the matter as 
-would a disinterested person, I requested ten 
or twelve intelligent gentlemen successively to 
compare them, to see if they could discover any 
sense in I\Ir. B.'s quotation that is not in mine. 
So far I have found no one who was sufficiently 
sharp sighted to see the difference that Mr. B. 
complains of. As for his complaint that the 
word rights, in the last sentence, is put instead 
of the word rites, as in his quotation, I have 
only to say, the accidental substitution of that 
word for the other did not affect the controversy 
at all. It was evidently an error of the com- 
positor ; I gained nothing by it ; and all the 
harm done was to make tautology- in the sen- 
tence, and give ^Ir. B. an opportunity to groan, 
f without cause. Although I am satisfied that I 
have done the gentleman no wrong in quoting 
him, yet to gratify him, in the revised edition I 
have placed his own quotation at length, and I 
hope the compositor will, in the last sentence 
of the quotation, get the right word, " nYe." So 
that the gentleman, if he should honour me 
"with any further notice, will not have this 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 179 

" Straw to catch at^^ in supporting his sinking 
cause, and vindicating his injured reputation. 

In his remarks on my '' string of questions, ^^ 
as he calls them, page 15, he seems quite to 
have lost his temper. I suppose those interro- 
gatories awoke his " ordinary^'' or eaj^raordinary 
" sensibility.^^ He is at a loss, he says, what 
to attribute those questions to ; — whether to " a 
want of common sense," or to wickedness, in 
" intentional misrepresentation." He will have 
it that either my understanding or my heart is 
defective. He hopes, however, I will " find 
some explanation that will relieve him." Now, 
candid reader, I have no means by which to 
learn what Mr. B.'s meaning was, except from 
the words which he used. If he csmnot find 
means to make himself understood, that is not 
my fault, and I have no fears that the intelligent 
reader will understand his words in any other 
sense than the obvious one which I gave them. 
He has acknowledged that the statements made 
in my quotation " are contradicted by the facts 
in the case." Then if the reader shall find that 
I have quoted him fairly, it will appear that he 
himself has contradicted the facts relative to the 
institution of circumcision in the family of 
Abraham. My appeal is to you. 

I will here present the reader with a quota- 
tion from Mr. B.'s Strictures, page 4, which 
may throw some light on the views expressed 
by him in his Sermon, page 17 : " The Ahra- 
hamic dispensation secured to all who ^oere 

CIRCUMCISED, A PORTION IN THE EARTHLY 



180 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

Canaan." Now, will that gentleman say that 
this statement is not contradicted by the facts? 
Ishmael, and Esan, and their seed, were cir- 
cumcised, and the men of Abraham's house, 
three hundred and eighteen in number ; and 
did all, or ajiy of them, have any portion in the 
EARTHLY Canaan ? I auswcr, NO — and every 
man who is acquainted with his Bible, and has 
not " a theory to support^^ by contradicting facts, 
will answer, no. 

On page 15, in noticing my remarks relative 
to the new constitution of Virginia, which 1 had 
used by way of illustration, ^Ir. B., instead of 
giving the illustration as I had stated it, gives 
just enough of it to make a wTong impression 
and ans\rer his own purposes. If he had given 
all my words in the case, the reader would have 
seen that I was perfectly correct. I refer the 
reader to the " Appeal" for the illustration as I 
used it. Why did not the gentleman see fit to 
give the illustration which I took from the com- 
mon law ? I suppose he thought it best to keep 
that out of the view of his readers, as he has 
most of my arguments. 

As Mr. B. has quoted our Discipline on this 
subject, and says members of other churches 
have to undergo an examination, and takes 
upon himself to suppose that we would make 
the matter of baptism a point in the examina- 
tion of the applicant, I will only say, if he had 
found it convenient to quote the next sentence, 
the reader would have seen the explanation of 
the one he did quote. Here it is : " No person 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 181 

shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among 
us, who is guilty of any practice for which we 
would exclude a member of our church." 

As Mr. B., page 19, has dragged in the sub- 
ject of female commimion, and has declared 
that " there is a ' Thus saith the Lord' for it in 
every passage of Scripture that speaks of the 
Lord's supper at all," it may not be amiss to 
examine this matter a little. In the first men- 
tion of the supper, Luke xxii, 14-20, it is said 
that Jesus " sat down, and the twelve apostles 
with him." Now, will the gentleman say that 
part of the apostles were females ? He says, 
in every passage where the supper is mentioned 
there is a " Thus saith the Lord" for female 
communion. It happens that we have the names 
of the twelve who were at the institution of the 
Lord's supper, and there is no female name 
among them. But he says, " disciples met, and 
we know, without any inference about it, that 
the females met with them ; because we learn 
that both men and women were made disciples 
by baptism." " You might as well contend that 
it is an ' inference' to say that the inales met to 
break bread ; for they are no more specified than 
the females,^'' Mr. B. surely presumes very 
much upon the ignorance or credulity of his 
readers, when he makes such sweeping de- 
clarations as the above. Does he suppose that 
they are so little acquainted with their Bibles— 
the book he so often calls the "poor man's 
lexicon" — that he expects to pass off on them 
such unsupported declarations? I refer the 



182 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

reader to 1 Cor. xi, 28, 29, 33 — " But let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup. For he that 
eateth and drinketh unworthily — to himself, 
&c. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come 
together to eat," &c. And yet, Mr. B. says, 
7nales are ?io more specified than females. Our 
Baptist writers, aware that the course of rea- 
soning they pursue with regard to infants, deny- 
ing them the rite of baptism, because they say 
there is no precept or precedent for baptizing 
children, would, if adopted, in the case of 
females, exclude them from the luord^s table, have 
attempted to furnish a " Thus saith the Lord." 
And they will not allow that there is any infer- 
ence in the matter. They argue thus : Women 
were baptized as well as men — women and men 
constituted the churches — the churches partook 
of the Lord's supper — therefore women have a 
right to the Lord's table. But is not this an 
inference ? This is no express warrant. It is 
strange that those who reason thus for loomen 
should yet refuse all inference for the infant 
children of women. 

As Mr. B., page 20, has concluded, without 
reason, that I had either given up the argument 
from proselyte baptism, or had not made up an 
opinion on that point, and expresses a hope 
that he will hear no more on the subject, I have 
introduced a short article in the enlarged Ap- 
peal on proselyte baptism, to which I beg leave 
to refer the reader. To what I have there said 
on the subject I here add a remark, and several 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 183 

authorities. The baptism of proselytes is gene- 
Tally supposed to have taken its rise from the 
baptism of the Jews when passing through the 
Red Sea, to which the apostle refers, 1 Cor. x, 
1, 2. As they, coming out from idolatrous 
Egypt, were " all baptized to Moses," the Jews 
considered, in all after ages, that those who 
renounced idolatry, and joined the church of 
the true God, should be baptized as well as 
circumcised. In proof of which, I refer to the 
quotations given below. 

Calmet's Dictionary, article Proselyte : "The 
Jews require three things in a complete prose- 
lyte ; baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice ; but 
for women, only baptism and sacrifice." 

Witsius, one of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, 
" When a Gentile became a proselyte of right- 
eousness, three ceremonies were used, viz., 
circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice." 

Stackhouse, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, 
says, " The custom of the Jews, in all ages^ 
has been to receive their heathen proselytes 
by baptism, as well as by sacrifice and circum- 
cision." 

Dr. Wall, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, 
"Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the 
Jewish religion, they were initiated by circum- 
cision, the offering of a sacrifice, and baptism. 
They were all baptized, males and females, 
adults and infants. This was their constant 
practice, from the time of Moses to that of our 
Saviour, and from that period to the present 
day." 



184 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Finally, I quote Dr. Adam Clarke, another 
of Mr. B.'s witnesses : " The apostles knew 
well that the Jews not only circumcised the 
children of proselytes, but also baptized them. 
The children, and even infants, of proselytes 
were baptized among the Jews. They were, 
in consequence, reputed clean, and partakers 
of the blessings of the covenant." 

The apostles, being by birth and education 
Jews, would, therefore, in " discipling all na- 
tions," admit the children with the parents, un- 
less forbidden so to do. 

The astonishment expressed at John's bap- 
tizing did not arise from the fact that he prac- 
tised baptism, but because he declared he was 
neither the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, 
at the same time administering the rite of bap- 
tism ; — that he should, while disclaiming the 
character of a minister, exercise the functions 
of one. See John i, 19-26. 

The quibble of Mr. B., on page 20, about 
infants not being saved " by any thing pertain- 
ing to the gospel dispensation," is one among 
many instances which prove the non-committal 
character of his theological views. While he 
calls upon me to state frankly and plainly what 
our views are, he studiously avoids giving his 
own with regard to the condition of infants. 
He says, " We, or at least /, do not place their 
salvation upon any thing pertaining to the Chris- 
tian dispensation,^^ 

On page 29, he says, with regard to infants, 
"I have not attempted to show (nor shall 1) 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 185 

how they are fitted for heaven ; but I am sure 
it is not through sanctification o^ the Spirit and 
belief of the truth." Here the reader will per- 
ceive, Mr. B. gives no opinion about the manner 
in which infants are saved. Does he believe 
at all in the salvation of all who die in infancy ?" 
I do not ask this question because he does not 
baptize infants, but because he was once an 
advocate of a system oi partial grace; and al- 
though " he has changed his manner of preach- 
ing," I have not learned that he has avowed the 
" change of his belief in one single item." 

Now, candid reader, I shall appeal to the 
Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, page 
45, for evidence that the Baptists formerly held 
the regeneration of some infants, at least, by 
Christ through the Spirit, and I suppose the 
Spirit "pertains to the gospel dispensation." 
The words of the Confession are — " Elect in- 
fants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and 
saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh 
when, and where, and how he pleases : so, 
also, are all elect persons, who are incapable 
of being outwardly called by the ministry of 
the word." The reader will observe, that they 
quote the words of Christ to adult Nicodemus, 
in proof of the position here stated — " Except 
a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God ;" — " The wind bloweth where it 
listeth," &;c. ; — " So is every one that is born 
of the Spirit." It seems, then, that those plain, 
honest people, who were not afraid that the world 
should know what they held as doctrine, considered 



186 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

that infants were fitted for heaven through the 
operation of the Spirit. The Confession I quote 
from was put forth by the " elders and brethren, 
in London and the country," and adopted by the 
association which met at Philadelphia in 1742. 

But perhaps I shall be told these views are 
not entertained now by the Virginia Baptists. 
And as Mr. Broaddus says, " The Baptists 
generally acknowledge no Confession of Faith 
but the New Testament," page 24, I may be 
referred to the New Testament to learn Baptist 
views. However, if the Baptists will publish 
" Declarations of Faith," I must be allowed to 
quote them as authority. In "A Declaration 
of Faith," published by the United Baptists of 
Virginia, (or several associations of them,) 
printed in Alexandria, 1833, they declare, page 
14, " The creature being wholly passive there- 
in, being dead in sins and trespasses, until, 
being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit^ 
he is thereby enabled to ansv^er this call, and 
embrace the grace conveyed in it," &c. So it 
seems, candid reader, that although Mr. B. will 
not state his views (if he has any) about the 
manner in which infants are saved, or fitted for 
heaven, that in the view of the Confessions of 
Faith quoted above, adults and infants are both 
" renewed or regenerated" by the Holy Ghost. 

Mr. B. affects to believe that he has found 
out a wonderful difference between my views 
and Mr. Wesley's, on the subject of the condi- 
tion of infants ; and he seems so pleased with 
the discovery, that he drags it forward, for the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 187 

entertainment of his readers, in several different 
letters. Let us look at it a little. On page 32 
he says, " Allow me to quote what Mr. Wesley 
says, and also what you yourself say. ' Infants 
need to be washed from original sin.' — Wesley's 
Works, vol. ix, p. 159. * Infants have innocence 
to recommend them.' — Slicer's Appeal, p. 46. 
Is not this a disagreement 1" He adds : " But 
you even disagree with yourself on this point ; 
for, although you recommend infants by their 
innocence, page 46, you say, page 66, infants 
need an application of the blood of Christ to 
purify or make them AoZy." Reader, can you 
suppose that Mr. B. is so destitute of common 
understanding, that he does not know the differ- 
ence between innocence and moral purity or holi- 
ness ? A teacher in the Baptist Church, and yet 
affecting not to know that innocence and the 
want of purity are compatible ! I did say that 
infants had innocence to recommend them to 
baptism, and I explained it by stating they were 
in a state of justification. In proof of which I 
quoted Rom. v, 18, " The free gift hath passed 
upon all, to justification of life." I did say that 
infants needed the application of the blood of 
Jesus, through the eternal Spirit, to make them 
holy, and fit them for heaven ; and I gave the 
same reason for it that Mr. Wesley did, viz., 
" Infants need to be washed from original sin." 
My words on page 66 are, " I suppose Mr. B. 
holds the doctrine of original sin, in opposition 
to Pelagius ; if so, infants need an application 
of the blood of Christ to purify or make them 



188 OBLIGATION, SI'BJECTS, AND 

holy." Now you see, intelligent reader, that 
]\Ir. B. has taken my words out of their proper 
connection : that he has brought a passage from 
page 66, and put it opposite a passage on page 
46, that referred to another matter, in order to 
impose upon his readers an impression that I 
disagree with myself; and, as though he thought 
he could convince sensible people by this kind 
of management, says, with an air of triumph, 
'• So glaring are the contradictions into which 
this human device of baptizing infants can lead 
sensible men.'' Candid reader, do you see any 
disagreement between Mr. Wesley's views and 
mine ? Do you see that my own views are un- 
equal ? '-I speak as unto wise men." 

I must now ask a question or two further, to 
show the management of this gentleman. Do 
any of Mr. B.'s members enjoy the blessing of 
justification ? I have no doubt many of them 
do. Being justified, are they innocent^ or are 
they guilty^ Innocent, I suppose, for I have 
always been taught to believe that justification 
takes away the guilt of sin. This, too, I find 
to be the doctrine of the Philadelphia Confes- 
sion above quoted, where they distinguish justi- 
ficatioyi and sanctification, and speak of thera 
under difterent heads. Well, then, those per- 
sons among Mr. B.'s members who are justified, 
i. e., delivered from guilt, are they holy in heart 
also ? If they are not, they need the sanctifying 
operations of the Holy Ghost. Does Mr. B. 
suppose that children are guilty ? He seems to 
be greatly troubled that I should contend for 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 189 

their innocence. I supposed that the veriest 
novice in theology would be able to distinguish 
between personal guilt, arising from actual sin 
against God's law, and that corruption of nature 
which every child brings into the world with it, 
which both Mr. Wesley and myself have called 
" original sin^'^ and which the Baptist Confes- 
sion, page 32, calls " original corruption, from 
which proceed all actual transgressions P But in 
this, it seems, I am disappointed — Mr. B. cannot 
understand it. He says, page 30, " I acknow- 
ledge myself utterly unable to comprehend." 
" It will require some one better skilled in 
mystification than myself to untangle all this 
jumble of contradictions." He asks, " How 
those who are not guilty — in a state of justifi- 
cation — can need an application of the blood 
of Christ through the eternal Spirit, to purify 
them ?" Page 29, he says also, " What do you 
mean, Mr. S. ? Innocence needi purifying ? I am 
truly astonished at such views of the subject." 
I suppose he thought that if he cried out from 
astonishment, and especially if he could make 
an impression in the Methodist community that 
Mr. Wesley's views and mine were at variance, 
he might scare some timid soul into the water. 
Hear him, page 21: "Here is the author of 
the Methodist book of Discipline and one of 
its authorized expounders as far apart in their 
views of a gospel ordinance as guilt is from 
innocence ! ! ! You need not wonder, sir, that, 
under these circumstances, those that have not 
skill sufficient to weld cold iron and hot together, 



190 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

should, with the Bible (the ' poor man's Lexi- 
con') to guide them, reject both your theory 
and Mr. Wesley's." It may be that, if Mr, B. 
had a creed, and should make it known to the 
world, and it should not be too " gloriously un- 
certain" to be understood, that some of his views 
might at least be as objectionable even to some 
of the Baptists as mine appear to be to him, 
especially as he has been strongly suspected of 
heresy by many of " the baptized." Query — Is 
this the reason why the gentleman says, page 

23, '•' I HAVE NO CREED NOR CATECHISM FOR 

THEM TO LEARN ?" Mr. Alexander Campbell 
has no creed, but he has found it convenient to 
make a translation of the New Testament to 
suit his views. Whenever an individual wishes 
to pull down the fences of established doctrine 
and discipline, he raises a hue and cry about 
creeds and confessions of faith, saying, " The 
Bible is my creed," " The Bible is my dis- 
cipline ;" and for what is all this, but to make 
an impression upon the credulous that his views 
are more in keeping with the Scriptures than 
those of others, in order that he may form a 
party, and set himself up as its oracle ? thus 
giving an illustration of the words of the apostle, 
" Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking 
. perverse things, to draw away disciples after 
them,^^ Acts xx, 30. 

I here, candid reader, warn you against all 
leaders of parties, who emblazon upon their 
banners, *' No creed hut the Bible.'^ They 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 191 

practise a kind of " religious piracy ^^"^ and by 
" soft words" and " fair speeches" delude the 
simple. 

In the early part of my ministry, I was 
brought in contact with some who had, profess- 
edly, no creed, and no discipline, but the New 
Testament. They thought this creed taught 
them to reject infant baptism ; to hold immer- 
sion as the exclusive mode ; to deny the doctrine 
of original sin, and also the divinity of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. How many other errors they held 
it was difficult to tell, for their system, as the 
systems of all such, possessed a kind o/" chame- 
leon CHARACTER. I hold the two following 
axioms to be undeniable : 1st. Men who are 
intelligent will have a well-digested system of 
religious views ; and 2d. That men who have 
moral honesty v/ill not hesitate to publish those 
views to the world. A non-committal course 
on Christian doctrine is as unworthy a high- 
minded, honourable man, as it is unbecoming 
the frankness that ought always to mark the 
course of a religious teacher. If a man he in 
the ministry, and his mind is unsettled, let him 
retire until he has satisfied himself what is truth, 
and what is error. Let him not stand up before 
intelligent men, and, reading a few paragraphs 
from a religious newspaper, say, " My friends, 
these contain 7ny present views of Christian 
doctrine. I say my present views — I do not say 
that they will be my views twelve months 
hence, or one month from now, but they con- 



192 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

tain 7mj present viewsP The nineteenth century- 
is not the age to be making, even- month, dis- 
coveries in Christian doctrine. 

What did Mr. B. expect to gain, by quoting 
against infants, page 30, the words of St. Peter, 
Acts XV, 9 ? In the first place, he quotes the 
text A\Tong. His words are, '•' Peter says, * God 
purifies the heart by faith.' " Peter's words are, 
" And put no difierence between us and them, 
purifpng their hearts by faith." Peter's words 
refer to particular individuals, " their hearts^ 
They were adult Gentile converts, as the reader 
may see by referring to the passage. Peter 
puts adult converts in the premises, and ■Mr. B. 
puts children in the conclusion. This is a 
favourite method of some Baptists. Suppose 
Peter does say their hearts were pmified by 
faith, does that prove the heart cannot be puri- 
fied without faith ? St. Paul says, Heb. ix, 14, 
" That the conscience is purged by the blood 
of Christ." And in Titus iii, 5, he says, God 
saved us " by the washing of regeneration, and 
reneicing of the Holy Ghost.^^ I wonder, candid 
reader, if ^Ir. B. was aware of the dilemma into 
which quoting Peter's words as being against 
our children would bring him ? Either their 
hearts can be purified without faith. — they need 
no purification, — or they cannot go to heaven. 
If they are born fit for heaven in Mr. B.'s view, 
then he is a Pelagian, and holds infant purity. 
But, on the other hand, if they are born unclean, 
unfit for heaven, and cannot he purified without 
faUh, and are incapable of believing, then,imless 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 193 

less in their impurity they can go to a holy hea- 
ven, they must, of necessity, be lost. Such are 
the consequences which follow from this gentle- 
man's method of quoting Scripture against infants. 

The Scriptures say expressly that John the 
Baptist '' did no miracle.''^ Yet Mr. B., page 29, 
will have it that his being " filled with the Holy 
Ghost" was '^ altogether ' s, miraculous influence,' 
and suggests nothing to us on the subject of the 
salvation of infants." John's " miraculous in- 
fluence," then, lay dormant all his life, for " he 
did no miracle.'' 

On page 28, Mr. B. says, with regard to the 
children that were brought to Christ, and taken 
in his arms, " I did not affirm that there never 
were any unconscious infants brought to Jesus ; 
I only expressed a doubt on the subject : and I 
still have too much doubt on the subject to ad- 
mit of my regulating a gospel ordinance by it." 
It may be, if this gentleman should write once 
or twice more, that he will become a believer at 
least in the infancy/ of those children, for he 
seems to be getting rid of his doubts ; and as 
doubts leave him, I suppose faith will take pos- 
session of his mind. In the Sermon, page 13, 
he says, " I am led to doubt exceedingly." I 
think he is a little ashamed of that now, for in 
quoting himself, he says, " / expressed a doubt^'* 
and " I still have too much doubt," &c. And he 
says, *' he hopes I will see the difference betvveea 
affirming that ' there never were,' and doubting 
* whether there ever were.' " And adds, " If 
you can see the difference, you may decide 
13 



194 OBLIGATTOXS, SUBJECTS, AND 

who ought to * hlusli' in this case." I suppose 
there is about as much difference between the 
man who has " exceeding doubts^' about the truth 
of God's word, and he that " affirms" that the 
word is not true, as there is between a well- 
grown hoy and a man. They are both of the 
same family, only one is a little larger than the 
other. He that " exceedingly doubts" God's 
word, and he that denies its truth, are both " of 
the family of unbelief .''^ Reader, do you see the 
difference ? 

Although I had called the attention of the 
reader to the parallel passage in Luke xviii, 15, 
where it is said, " They brought unto him also 
INFANTS," and had hinted at the unfairness of 
Mr. B. in quoting the passage from Matthew 
and Mark, and bringing his "lexicon" to ex- 
plain Tzaidia in those passages, while he omitted 
to quote Luke, where the word (ipe^i] is used 
instead of TraiJza, yet in his " Letters" he plays 
the same game. Although Luke, the physician^ 
wrote after Matthew and Mark, and was, pos- 
sibly, the most learned of the three, and whose 
mention of the case may be presumed to give 
the fair explanation of the passage in Matthew 
'' and Mark, yet Mr. B. does not refer to Luke at 
all : because he knew that the sense of /?p£c!>7 
could not, by any possible construction, be ex- 
plained away. He knew that SchreveHus, to 
whom he referred for the meaning of the ori- 
ginal word in Mark, interprets the word in 
Luke to mean, "a very little child." And 
if he had consulted " Donnegan's Lexicon" on 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 195 

the word, he would have found that it signifies 
*' A NEW-BORN BABE," and not " hoy, child, youth, 
servant,^^ Slc, as Mr. B. defines the word in 
Mark to mean. This inflexible word in Luke 
could not be twisted so as to make against 
infants, therefore he passed it over in solemn 
silence ! 

What he says, page 29, about children being 
the " model for adults," and doves, and sheep, 
and serpents being models also, is far-fetched, 
and perfectly ridiculous. When Mr. B. fur- 
nishes a passage from God's word, where it is 
said that Christ took sheep, or doves, or ser- 
pents ^^ iiito his arms'^ "and blessed them," and 
said, " Of such is the kingdom of God,''^ and, 
^^ Suffer them to come to me, and forbid them not,^^ 
then, and not till then, will there appear to be 
some sense in what he calls " a syllogism." 
I know it is often the case that men get into 
the " visible church" on earth who have more 
of the " tvisdom of the serpen f^ than the '' harm- 
lessness of the dovej^ hut Christ has never said 
of them, " Of such is the hngdom of heaven P 

After reading Elder Dagg's exposition of 
1 Cor. vii, 14, as given by Mr. B. in his seventh 
letter, I am more fully persuaded of the correct- 
ness of the view I had given of the passage in 
my former argument, to which I beg leave to 
refer the reader. It would have been better if 
Mr. B. could have given his readers one text of 
Scripture, only, against my view of the passage, 
than to have given all the Greek and English 
of Mr. Dagg's exposition. I quoted several. 



196 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

and referred to nine other texts in support of 
iny views. 

On page 35, Mr. B. attempts to furnish a salvo 
for the contradiction I had pointed out betv^een 
his Sermon and the Strictures. And he asks, 
"JL?*e not infants unbelievers?'''^ "Surely you 
will not deny this ; and yet they are not guilty 
of the sin of unbelief for they are not required to 
believe." " All I mean by denominating them 
unbelievers is, that they are 7iot believers, neither 
is it possible they could be. Where now is the 
discrepancy?" Well, then, it is not possible 
that children should believe. And yet he will 
have it that tliey are unbelievers. Mr. B. is the 
lirst man, whose productions I have ever read, 
who could so far forget or expose himself as 
even to ask, ^'Are not infants unbelievers V* A 
new kind of unbelievers truly ! ! Suppose, can- 
did reader, I apply a little of Mr. B.'s logic to 
this case, in order to show more fully its ab- 
surdity. You will observe, after all his vaunting 
about his acquaintance with the Scriptures, and 
referring me to them to learn Baptist " customs," 
(page 24,) he is exceedingly careful not to give 
us much Scripture in support of his views. 
I think the reader will find that my argument 
in the " Appeal" is supported by at least two 
texts of Scripture for every one furnished by 
him, either in his Sermon or Letters. This by 
the way, however. But to the point, ^^ Are 
not children unbelievers f " Where is the text ? 
" Surely you will not deny this V No, I will not, 
if God's word says so. I will not even " doubt 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 197 

eV," if the Bible declares it. Where is the text 1 
It is not to be found. Then I shall surely deny 
it, for I cannot take it upon Mr. B.'s mere as- 
sertion, when he is in the habit of making 
sweeping declarations and dogmatical asser- 
tions, misupported by proof. But the gentle- 
man means that " they are unbelievers, because 
they are not believers." Wo to the children 
if his assertions are correct, and his logic sound. 
In John iii, 36, it is said, "He that believeth 
NOT the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath 
of God abideth on him.^^ The commission says, 
" He that believeth not shall be damned.'''' 
And in Rev. xxi, 8, " The unbelieving are 
classed with murderers and idolaters J'' and " shall 
have their part in the lake burning with fire and 
brimstone^ Now for Mr. B.'s logic. "The 
commission excludes all unbelievers, whether 
unconscious infants or unbelieving adults.'''' Then 
if their not believing constitutes them unbe- 
lievers, look at the fearful condition in which 
they are placed by the texts above quoted. 
" They shall not see life^'' and be with the vilest 
characters "m the lake of fire. ^^ This is the 
issue to which Mr. B.'s question, ''Are not in- 
fants unbelievers V leads to. The Scriptures 
'nowhere attribute faith or unbelief to infants. 
Because they each and equally require the volun- 
tary exercise of the mind and heart with regard 
to what God has spoken, of which infants are 
incapable. And no man who understands the 
force of language will ask such preposterous 
and silly questions, unless he is closely 



198 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

wedded to a system which he calculates to 
help thereby. 

Mr. B., page 36, attempts to make out that I 
have misconstrued his quotation from Dr. Hill. 
The reader can see, by referring to my argu- 
ment, that I have quoted Mr. B. correctly, (if 
he has not quoted the doctor correctly that is 
his look out,) and have given the words their 
obvious meaning. Mr. B. represents Dr. Hill 
as saying, " The writings of the fathers have 
been so long in the keeping of the corrupt 
Church of Rome, and have been so altered by 
pious frauds, &c., that our confidence in them 
must be greatly weakened indeed." And I asked 
if the infidel might not urge the same reason 
against his receiving the New Testament scrip- 
tures, as they, too, were long in the keeping of 
the Church of Rome ? Mr. B. calls this " an 
attempt to expose him and Dr. Hill to the wit 
of infidels." If he has exposed himself^ that is 
his misfortune^ not my fault. 

His attempt to destroy the credibility of Ori- 
gen as a witness, by recounting some of his 
errors, is truly pitiful. What, I ask, had Ori- 
gen's " visionary vieivs^^ to do with his testimony 
concerning a plain matter of fact, viz., " Infants 
by the usage of the church are baptizedV His 
visionary views had just as much to do with his 
testimony in this case, as would the " visionary 
views" of Stork, of the German Anabaptists, if 
he had given testimony in court, or to the world, 
that John Boccold, the leader of the sect, held 
polygamy, and had, at one time, fourteen wives. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 199 

See Ross's History of All Religions, and Robin- 
son's Charles V., vol. ii, p, 301. I suppose in 
neither case ought the testimony to be rendered 
invalid by the visionary views of the witness in 
some other matters. 

I am entirely satisfied with the collateral tes- 
timony for infant baptism given from the writings 
of the fathers in ih.^ former argument, and shall 
not repeat them here, nor add to the number of 
the witnesses, as I conceive for the candid they 
are quite sufficient, and others would not he con^ 
vinced hy a cloud of witnesses. It was to the 
interest of Demetrius and his silversmiths, when 
" their craft was in danger,^'' to cry out, " Great 
is Diana of the Ephesians ;" this was more 
easily done than either to prove the claims of 
Diana, or to disprove the preaching of St. Paul. 

I had shown that Mr. B. and Mr. Judson dif- 
fered only about four hundred years in fixing the 
origin of infant baptism : Mr. B., page 39, com- 
plains that " I have done him great injustice" in 
this case. He seems, candid reader, to have 
been so much hurt, that he does little beside 
complain of injustice done him. He not only 
disagreed with Mr. Judson, but now, in the very 
paragraph in whichiie complains, he contradicts 
himself as I shall here show. He says first, 
" The practice of baptizing infants grew out of 
an opinion very early entertained by the Church 
of Rome, that no unbaptized person could in- 
herit the kingdom of heaven." Then he says, 
" For although the baptism of infants was in-- 
vented as early as the close of the second century ^ 



200 OELIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AXD 

the sprinkJuig of infants was not regularly in- 
troduced until 753,'' <fcc. Xow. reader, will he 
say that the Church of Rome existed at the 
close of the second century ?* If he will con- 
tinue to display his want of acquaintance with 
church histof}-, or to say and unsay in the same 
paragraph, that is not my fault. I shall show 
the reader, before I have done with his Letters, 
that there are some other things that need a salvo. 

"What I said of the Waldenses being Pedo- 
baptists, and the proof I adduced, has not been 
set aside by what Mr. B. has adduced from Mr. 
Jones and Mosheim. I cannot believe that 
Mr. B. himself thought the evidence in point; 
for, immediately after adducing his testimony, 
he says, " Still I do not build upon this my 
views o{ the kingdom of Christ. No : 1 have 
a better manual." Then he refers to the " word 
of his king," and to the " commission," " He 
that belie veth and is baptized." He says, " This 
puts an end to the controversy, in my mind." 
This, after all, is the only argument the Baptists 
have against infant baptism. 

IMr. B., page 41, drags in the subject of ordi- 
nation, and asks, with a haughty air, " What 
right had Mr. Wesley to ordain bishops and 
priests ?" and introduces Dr. Cook's book, as 
though he believed the doctor's views. Now, 
reader, when Mr. B. and myself are done with 

* By " the Church of Rome" wc undcrstaiul tho author 
not to refer to the church at Rome, as it existed in anos- 
toHc times, but the Roman hierarchy as it has existed for 
several centuries under tho reign of the popes. — Ed. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 201 

the subject of baptism, if he prefers a contro- 
versy v/ith me on ordination and succession, 
then I shall think it the most proper time to 
answer his question relative to Mr. Wesley. 
Until then, I refer him on that subject to Bishop 
Emory's " Defence of our Fathers," and to D. 
Isaacs on " Ecclesiastical Claims." 

On page 42 we have another instance of the 
gentleman's complaining without cause. Instead 
of quoting my language in the case, he makes 
a desperate effort to excite public sympathy in 
his favour. He says, " I am truly sorry to find 
that you are willing to sustain your cause by an 
attack upon my motives." " You represent me 
(page 76) as being ' prepared to make a sacri- 
fice of all historical evidence upon the altar of 
a prejudice that is both deaf and blind," &c. 
I represented no such thing. I did not say a 
word about his sacrificing at any altar. I did 
not mention his name or allude to him in the 
sentence, the latter part of which only he quotes. 
And, if he had sneered at the conduct and feel- 
ings of mothers, who wished to have their 
children baptized before they died, was it not 
much worse in him to sneer^ than for me to 
allude to his having done it ? If he had not 
done it, why did he not deny it, instead of 
giving his readers a display about " the talents 
and dignity of a presiding elder," about " Go- 
liath and David," and " policy," and " common 
politeness," &c. 1 

Now, candid reader, I never supposed the 
important and responsible office which I held, 



202 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

when I answered Mr. B., gave nie any increase 
of talents or dignity. If it did, however, as he 
intimates, as my term of service, according to 
our economy, has now expired, he will have 
the consolation to know that he contends with 
one in a different capacity, only an elder, like 
himself. It is possible Mr. B. may be able to 
teach me "poZzcy," as I do not profess to be an 
adept in craftiness. I suppose the intelligent 
reader of his Letters will conclude that if I 
should need lessons in " common politeness^'' it 
will be necessary for me to seek some other 
teacher. 

Mr. B. invited me to write on baptism, and I 
complied, perhaps not to his mind or liking. 
Notwithstanding he invited me to write, and 
offered inducements to me, he says, page 43, 
" I neglected my district, in order to write these 
eighty pages." And gives this in such a way, 
as to lead his readers to suppose that he quoted 
it from the Appeal, page 6. I have only to say, 
that this is a sin of which I am not guilty, and 
I have no fears that it will be imputed to me by 
those who know me. If Mr. B. can help his 
cause by any such groundless allegations, and 
can find that his conscience will sustain him in 
being an " accuser of the brethren," he has my 
full consent to avail himself of it. It will occur 
to the reader, however, that that must be a bad 
cause which needs such support. 

The case of Simon, the sorcerer, which I 
dwelt upon in my Appeal, seems to have pre- 
sented some difficulty in the way of Mr. B.'s 



SiODE OF BAPTISM. 203 

views. He touches it on page 44, and then 
drops it as though it burnt him. He again 
comes up to it, page 47, and, after all, blinks 
the question involved in the case, thinking, I 
suppose, that it was prudent not " to follow me" 
in that case, as it presented "a two-horned 
dilemma." 

His affecting, on page 44, not to understand 
my remarks relative to ApoUos, because, as he 
says, " I have not expressed myself with clear- 
ness," is one of his stratagems of warfare. 
What I said relative to Apollos, and Saul of 
Tarsus, I produced plain Scripture to support. 
As it is utterly impossible that his readers can 
have any tolerable idea of my argument on the 
subject of adult candidates for baptism, from the 
manner in which he has represented it in his 
Letters, I beg leave to refer them to the first 
Appeal, pages 90-97. A dust may be raised 
to obscure the truth, but it is hard to reason 
successfully against the facts stated in the 
Scriptures of truth. 

Mr. B. says, page 46, " None are really will- 
ing, but those who are really converted." This 
has a strong spice of " new divinity." The 
apostle Paul, I think in Rom. vii, teaches an 
opposite doctrine ; showing that there may be 
a will to good, while there is the absence of moral 
power to perform it : " For the good that I would, 
I do not ; but the evil that I would not, that I 
do." Mr. B. thinks on the same page, that be- 
cause " faith comes by hearing," therefore the 
falling of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius had 



204 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

nothing to do with his believing in Christ. He 
should have recollected that faith is said to be 
" of the operation of God," as well as to come 
hy hearing. He says, to be sure, page 43, " I 
believe that men need the influence of the Spirit, 
in order to their becoming real believers, genuine 
converts ; but this influence is nowhere called 
* receiving the Holy Ghost.'" Here is truly a 
distinction without a difference. Query, Is there 
any difference between " the Spirit" and " the 
Holy Ghost ?" Query, Can a man be influenced 
hy the Spirit^ before he receives the Holy Ghost 1 
But he will have it, that receiving the Holy 
Ghost signifies his " extraordinary influenced 
Joel says, " It shall come to pass in the last 
days, (saith God,) that I will pour out my Spirit 
upon all flesh," Joel ii, 28, 32. And their " being 
filled with the Holy Ghost" on the day of Pen- 
tecost, Peter said. Acts ii, 16, "is that which 
was spoken by the prophet Joel." Now, the 
pouring out of the Spirit, in Peter's judgment, 
is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost; 
and Joel, so far from limiting it to the " extra- 
ordinary influence^'' of the Spirit, given in primi- 
tive times, says, " God will pour it out upon all 
flesh^^ The question to be settled by the reader 
is a very plain one, viz.. Is the Spirit in its ex- 
traordinary influences poured out upon all flesh ? 
To ask the question is to answer it. The 
reader knows that it is not. Then you are to 
decide between the word of " the King," by the 
mouth of St. Peter, (interpreting the words of 
Joel) and the theory of Mr. Broaddus. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 205 

He knew that I had pronounced the " repeti- 
tion of Christian baptism to be profane," page 
46 ; and yet, by wresting my words from their 
proper connection, he attempts to make out 
that, " according to my showing^'' those who be- 
lieve, in adult age, are " fit subjects" of baptism, 
although they may have been baptized in in- 
fancy. And adds, " If you refuse to baptize 
him, you may expect him to leave you, and 
come over to us, without our compassing sea 
and land to proselyte him," page 47. After all 
the attempts of such men as Mr. B., and those 
who, like him, make light of infant baptism, I 
have known but very few intelligent persons who 
have been dissatisfied with their baptism in in- 
fancy. Most of those with whom their prose- 
lyting efforts have succeeded were those who 
had never received infant baptism, and had 
been accustomed to hear it ridiculed, as " haby 
sprmklirig,^'' " a relic of popery ^^^ &c. 

Mr. B. says, page 48, in giving his six rea- 
sons for opposing " infant baptism," that he 
would rather grieve over the distress of an 
affectionate mother, whose tender infants have 
died without the *' sealing ordinance," than to 
"sneer;" and adds, "If I sneer at all, it shall 
be at the conduct of those who require this 
unscriptural dedication at their hands." Now, 
reader, it is to be hoped that in future he will 
not sneer at all, and I have some reason to hope 
that he will quit that mode of argument^ at least 
when he writes. I believe his Letters of ninety 
pages contain less of the article than his Sermon 



206 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

of forty-two pages. This, however, may have 
arisen from the fact that he had himself and me 
to attend to, and had not time to devote to the 
distressed women and their dying children. 

One of the principal among his six reasons 
is, " that it tends to defeat the original design 
of baptism." He says, " All agree that baptism 
was designed by the great TIcad of the church 
to separate his church from the Avorld. Now, 
suppose all to be baptized in infancy, then the 
whole w^orld would be in the church, and the 
church, instead of being " a congregation of 
faithful men," " would include infidels and un- 
believers of every description ;" their right to a 
place in it being secured to them 5y their bap- 
tism.^^ Candid reader, might not a congrega- 
tion of Baptists, baptized in adult age, " contain 
infidels and mibelievers of every description," 
and would that prove aught against " adult bap- 
tism ?" Just as much as Mr. B.'s argument 
does against infant baptism. But he says bap- 
tism separates the church from the w^orld, and 
that " a right to a place in the church is secured 
hi/ haptismr On what ground, then, can the 
Baptists deprive those who have been baptized 
of their right of church memhersJiip, by expelling 
them, however immoral or infidel they may be, 
as baptism has separated them from the world ? 

His attempt to connect infant baptism with 
popery is a stratagem with which he seems 
very familiar ; and he more than intimates that 
the support of infant baptism is traditionary only. 
He says, " getting their * pattern' from tradition 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 207 

instead of the Bible." This is a pitiful attempt 
to narrow down the evidence for infant baptism 
to what he knew was considered only as col- 
lateral, viz., the testimony of the fathers, or 
the practice of the church as the fathers have 
detailed it. Why does he not allude to the fact, 
(in connection w^ith this subject,) that the Greek 
church, having no connection with the pope, have, 
notwithstanding, always held and practised infant 
haptism? He does not allude to this plainly, 
because he knows, if he can make an impres- 
sion on the public mind that infant baptism is 
" a relic of popery," and supported only by the 
same kind of evidence as the errors of the 
Romish Church, then he will succeed in ex- 
citing a prejudice against it that will help his 
cause. Why does not this gentleman level his 
artillery against popery direct ? Instead of en- 
gaging in this war against our children, why 
does he not use his influence in pointing out 
and reforming the errors of the Romish Church, 
such as transubstantiation, masses, &c. ? As I 
am not blessed with the same power of per- 
ceiving the horrible evils which this gentleman 
sees growing out of the practice of infant bap- 
tism, the reader will not be surprised that I 
consider the evils of which he complains as 
existing in his own imagination, and not in 
sober reality. I am still of the opinion that my 
" witty dialogue,''^ as he is pleased to call it, 
contains " the head and front" of the offence 
of this matter. 

On the subject of the *' baptism of house- 



208 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

holds" Mr. B. and myself are fairly at issue, 
especially with regard to the signification of 
the term oLKog, the original term used in those 
passages that contain the account of the baptism 
of the households of Crispus, the jailer, and 
Lydia, in the Acts of the Apostles. I will at- 
tend to this matter of difference between us 
when we have settled some other things. We 
expressed some anxiety to know something of 
the '-^ four households'' that Mr. B. said he had 
baptized ; but he has not had the goodness to 
follow the example of St. Luke in this matter, 
and give us the names and residences of his 
Lydias and their households. Surely those re- 
markable cases might be given with advantage 
to the cause, if indeed he is not more blessed 
in concealing than he would be in publishing 
them. This by the way. 

On page 25 he says, " In my Sermon I did 
not even conjecture who they (' Lydia's house- 
hold') were, although you represent me as sup- 
posing many things with respect to them." 
How stranoe it is that this oentleman will make 
such unqualified declarations, when the means 
for his conviction are before the public. In his 
Sermon, page 10, he says, "Who then were 
Lydia's household ? Were they partners in her 
mercantile operations ? This might he so. Were 
they 'jou-rneymen diers ?' Possibly they were. 
Or were they mere travelling companions V &c. 
** They were brethren, whom Paul and Silas 
comforted when they were about to leave the 
city; and could any but believers be brethren 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 209 

capable of being comforted ?" Here, the reader 
will perceive, is a string of questions, put by 
this gentleman in his Sermon, for what ? Why, 
obviously to convey his sentiments to his read- 
ers in the case, or to mislead their minds and 
deceive them. And yet, after all these ques- 
tions asked by him, he says, as you see above, 
** / did not even conjecture who they were^"^ and 
declares, " I represent him as supposing many 
things with respect to them." So I did repre- 
sent him as supposing some things at least ; and 
if I have misrepresented him^ in representing that 
when he asked those questions, and answered 
them, he honestly meant what he said, instead 
of intending to trifle with his readers, then I ask 
pardon for thus misrepresenting the gentleman^ 
and hope he will extend it to me, as he has 
kindly offered to do in one of his letters, ia 
another case. The truth is, candid reader, the 
Baptists have always found it a difficult task to 
make out a family for Lydia, without supposing 
that she had children. And, in order to help 
themselves in the case, some have supposed 
one thing, and others another. Some have 
thought that some of the women of whom we 
read, verse 13, were Lydia's household ; others, 
discovering that the word '' hrethren^^ occurs ia 
the fortieth verse, and finding that it would be 
hard work to transform those " women^'' into 
" 'brethren^'' have concluded that they were 
" partners in business" with Lydia, or " jour- 
neymen diers." Mr. B., however, (as he can 
find an '* express warrant^'' for ** female commu- 
14 



210 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

nion in every passage where the supper is men- 
tioned," and, of course, can find women in the 
passage where the apostle says, " Let a man 
examine himself;" "Wherefore, ^;«y 5re^Arew,' 
when ye come together to eat," &c., &:c., 1 Cor. 
xi, 28, 33,) one would think, could have found 
no great difficulty in holding both the above 
hypotheses, as " the brethren" comforted would 
surely include Lydia's women, and joumeyme/i 
diers also. 

It was not at all necessary for Mr. B. to 
make such a flourish about his "little anec- 
dote," as he calls it, and to put his readers to 
the trouble of examining the Scriptures before 
they could find out his meaning. I did, at 
Upperville, notice that oM prescription of the 
Baptists for finding a family for Lydia, by sup- 
posing she had "journeymen diers," but I did 
not claim the honour of inventing it, as Mr. B.'s 
informant must hav^e known, if he attended to 
what was said. I gave it as a part of the 
argument of the Baptists. I presume Mr. B. 
has heard for years of this " choice piece of 
wit," as he is pleased to call it, and I will not 
say, has often used it himself. The reader will 
find this supposition about Lydia's diers noticed 
in Watson's Institutes, part iv, page 394 ; and 
to show that I do not claim to be father of this 
precious creature of the imagination, I will give 
the words of Mr. Watson. He says, " Then, 
as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness 
of the attempt to torture this passage to favour 
an opinion, * her house' is made to consist of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 211 

journeymen diers, ' employed in preparing the 
purple she sold ;' and ' to complete the whole, 
these journeymen diers, although not a word is 
said of their conversion, no?- even of their exist- 
ence, in the whole story, are raised into * the 
brethren.' " 

Mr. B. says, page 27, " that Timothy and 
Luke could not have been ' the brethren that 
Paul comforted' before he departed, because 
* Timothy and Luke went with Paul to Berea,' " 
as I may see, he says, by consulting chap, xvii, 
10-16. I have consulted the passage, and can- 
not see any such thing, for the best of all rea- 
sons, i. e., it is not there to be seen. Mr. Wes- 
ley says, in his note on the place, " St. Luke 
seems to have been left at Philippi." And if 
the reader will be at the pains to look at the 
twentieth chapter, 5th and 6th verses, he will 
see that Luke does not fall in with Paul until 
they met at Troas. He leaves off speaking of 
himself as one of Paul's company, in the six- 
teenth chapter, and does not resume that style 
again until the twentieth chapter. So Mr. B. 
will have to look again, and, if he sees clearly, 
he will then perceive that Paul went from Phi- 
lippi to Thessalonica, and when a tumult arose 
there, the brethren sent him and Silas to Berea. 
Surely, candid reader, you will think that a 
gentleman who blunders as often as Mr. B. does 
in his statements as facts, ought either to be 
more careful, or less confident in making them. 

After carefully noticing his third effort to ex- 
plain this case, so as to operate against the 



212 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

baptism of children, I am entirely satisfied tliat 
the solution I gave in my Appeal is not to be 
set aside by Mr. B. at least, as I propose fm'ther 
to demonstrate. 

He has so arranged the words on page 60, 
as to cause them to make an utterly false im- 
pression on the mind of the reader. I do not 
say that he intended this. I do not speak of 
his motives, but of the fact. He says, '' 1 do 
think, if your ' wise men' will but consider that 
Paul and Silas went into the house of Lydia, 
and 'comforted the brethren,' it will appear to 
them much more ' improbable' that they were 
visiting brethren than that they belonged to the 
family of Lydia." The reader will observe he 
puts the words, into the house of Lydia, in 
italics, then connects them with " comforted the 
brethren" by the copulative conjunction " and." 
I aver, upon the authority of common sense, 
that no man, in reading the passage in Acts 
without note or comment, would ever receive 
from it any such impression as his manner of 
presenting it gives. The words of Luke are, 
'' And they went out of the prison, and entered 
into the house of Lydia : and when they had 
seen the brethren, they comforted them, and 
departed," Acts xvi, 40. 

I shall now proceed to examine the matter at 
issue between Mr. B. and Mr. Taylor, the editor 
of Calmet's Dictionary, as quoted by myself, 
Mr. B. says he does not know who this gentle- 
man is, nor has he ever heard before of the 
passage I quoted. Has that gentleman never 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 213 

read the celebrated debate between Mr. Alex- 
ander Campbell and Mr. Maccalla, which took 
place in Kentucky ? I should suppose he had, 
from the great similarity between some of Mr. 
B.'s and Mr. C.'s criticisms. In this debate 
Mr. Taylor is referred to as authority, and his 
and Dr. Rice's criticism was adopted by Mr. 
Maccalla. Mr. Campbell pronounced the criti- 
cism a " refuge of liesJ^ Mr. B. says it is " a 
palpable misrepresentation P This criticism of 
Mr. Taylor's is not only sustained by Dr. Rice, 
Mr. Maccalla, and Mr. Ralston, but in substance 
by Peter Edwards also. I might rest the argu- 
ment here, with confidence of its being satis- 
factory to the candid ; but shall proceed to 
examine some of the evidence that Mr. B. has 
produced, in order to show (as he says) that 
Mr. Taylor has led me " completely astray." 
He says, " I will not furnish ' three hundred' 
instances, nor even * fifty,' but I will furnish 
enough to satisfy the most skeptical that the 
sacred writers used the two words interchange- 
ably." 

The first case he mentions is Luke viii, 41 
and 51, where there is an account of raising 
the little daughter of Jairus. In the 41st verse 
there is an evident allusion to the family, as the 
family needed his help, and the word is otKog, 
In the 51st verse the dwelling is spoken of, and 
the word is oiKia, confirming Taylor's criticism. 
Luke X, 5, is Mr. B.'s next proof: " Into what- 
soever house ye enter, say. Peace be to this 
house." Here, again, in the first part of the 



214 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

verse the dwelling is meant ; in the last part of 
the verse the family is meant ; because Christ 
did not command his apostles to say, Peace be 
to the timbers, or brick, or stone, that formed 
the dwelling into which they entered, but. Peace 
be to the family, the omoc. This more fully 
confirms the view given in my former argu- 
ment. Mr. B. says, '' Jesus calls his father's 
house both olkoc and oiKia^^^ and refers to John 
ii, 16 ; xvi, 2. In the first passage the temple 
is spoken of, and the word is omog^ because in 
this case the container is put for the contained, 
as the temple was the residence of the congre- 
gation, " the visible family of God." In the 
other passage he refers to there is no such 
word in my Bible, and I use the " common 
version." It is possible he made a mistake, 
and referred to John xvi, instead of xiv, 2 ; 
there the word is ouaa^ but it refers to heaven, 
and I suppose the reader Avill conclude that the 
earthly temple and the invisible heaven are not 
exactly the same thing. 

The next case he adduces is the case of the 
oLKog of Stephanas, 1 Cor. i, 16, and xvi, 15. 
The apostle says, " I baptized also the house- 
hold (oi/cof) of Stephanas ;" and in the close of 
that epistle he mentions the household {olkio) 
of Stephanas ; and says to the Corinthian 
church, " Ye know the house of Stephanas," 
&c. In referring to the baptism of Stephanas 
and his family, he uses the word oLKog, but in 
referring to the family's having " addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints," he uses 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 215 

the word otKia^ evidently alluding to the whole 
domestic establishment. This is the same 
course pursued by St. Luke in Acts xvi, 32, 
" And they spake unto him (the jailer) the word 
of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," 
{otKia) — doubtless the whole domestic establish- 
ment were summoned to the preaching, and 
heard the word of the Lord, but there is no 
mention of any one inquiring about salvation 
but the jailer. And when the apostle said, 
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," he added, 
** and thou shalt be saved and thy house," 
{oiKoc) — and he and all his were baptized 
straightway, and he brought Paul and Silas 
out of the outer prison, where the preaching 
took place, into his family apartment, called by 
Luke his oiKog. Where the baptism of Lydia's 
family is spoken of in the 15th verse, the same 
word is used. " And when she was baptized 
and her household, (oi/cof,)" <fec., evidently her 
family and her children are meant, as scholars 
have said, and as we shall show more fully 
hereafter. The next evidence Mr. B. adduces 
is John xi, 20, 31, where the dwelling of Mary 
and Martha is called both otKog and oiKca ; but 
this is no proof against Mr. Taylor's criticism, 
for he says, *' When otKog is spoken of persons, 
it denotes a family of children ;" but Mr. B.'s 
proof does not present a case in point, for the 
passage refers, not to '^ persons ^^^ but altogether 
to a dwelling house. I suppose the intelligent 
reader can see the difference. 

After adducing the above quotations, address* 



216 OBLIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AN'D 

ing me, he says, *' How conclusively, Mr. S., 
do these passages show the fallacy of the dis- 
tinction which your ' editor' makes between 
oLKoc and oiKia.'- Then, thinking, I presume, 
that, conclusive as the evidence he had given 
already might be, it would not be amiss to 
*' make certainty more certain," he adds an 
evidence or two more. One we will notice ; 
the other is not material, as it proves nothing 
to the point, and we ha^e noticed it before. 
The one we remark upon is ]\Iatt. x, 13, "If 
the house (cklc) be worthy," Szc. I suppose 
this refers, as I said above, to the whole domes- 
tic establishment. 

In the parallel passage, Luke x, 5, the words 
are, " Into whatsoever house {oiKta) ye enter, 
say, Peace be to this house," (olkoc) — the mi- 
nister enters the dwelling (oiKta) and says, 
Peace be to the family, (olkoc.) These words 
differing sometimes in passages that are parallel, 
may have arisen out of the carelessness of 
transcribers, for I suppose they could as easily 
mistake in transcribing, and put one of those 
"words for the other, as Mr. B. could mistake, 
as the reader has seen above, in referring to a 
text for oLKia, where no such word exists. I do 
not blame -\Ir. B., nor would I blame a trans- 
criber, for an unintentional mistake. Having 
noticed Mr. B.'s e^'idence at length, I shall now 
proceed to adduce some additional testimony in 
favour of my view. 

I do not deny that olko^ is used figuratively 
for a dwelling house, because, in such cases, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 217 

the container is put for tlie contained, as is very 
commonly the case in our own language. 

The first proof I shall adduce is from Num. 
xvi, 27-32, "And Dathan and Abiram came 
out, and stood in the door of their tents, and 
their wives and sons, and their little children. 
And it came to pass that the earth opened her 
mouth and swallowed them up, and their houses 
{oLKovg.y^ Swallowed up their little children as 
part of their houses. 

But it is used to signify infants exclusively. 
See Deut. xxv, 9 ; where the law is alluded to 
which required a brother to take the widow of 
his deceased brother, and raise up a family for, 
or to, his deceased brother. If he refused to 
comply according to the law, then the widow 
was to loose his shoe, spit in his face, and say, 
" So shall it be done unto that man that will not 
build up his brother's house {oiKov.y^ But how 
was the brother's house to be " built up /"' By 
his raising a family of children, who were to be 
esteemed the children of the deceased brother. 

Again, Ruth iv, 11, 12, " The Lord make the 
woman that is to come into thine house, or 
dwelling place, like Rachel, and like Leah, 
which two did build up the house (olkov) of 
Israel. And let thy house be like the house 
(oiKog) of Phares, which Tamar bare unto Judah 
of the seed which the Lord will give thee of this 
young woman." How was the house of Israel 
built up by Rachel and by Leah ? Certainly by 
the children born to them from time to time. 
And how was the house of Boaz to become like 



218 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

the house of Phares, but by the infants to be 
born to him by Ruth, and which are styled " the 
seed of this young woman ?" One more example 
from the Old Testament may be quite sufficient. 
Psalm cxiii, 9, " He maketh the barren woman 
to keep house, {olko,) and to be a joyful mother 
of children." In this passage every unbiassed 
reader will see that the barren woman's heart 
was to be made glad by infants to be given to 
her by the Lord, and who were to constitute 
what is called her " house'^ or family. Now, to 
apply the metaphorical use of the word house, 
as an argument for infant baptism. We read in 
the New Testament of the baptism of Lydia 
and her house, and of the jailer and his house, 
and of Stephanas and his house, or household. 
The question now is, What did the inspired 
penmen mean by the word " housed'' in the record 
they have left us of these and other family bap- 
tisms ? They were well acquainted with the 
meaning of the term in the Old Testament, as 
sometimes signifying children separate from 
their parents, and little children, and infants 
exclusively. The Jews and Greeks, to whom 
they wrote, attached the same idea to the w^ord. 
When the Jews then read that Lydia and her 
house (oLKog) — the jailer and his house [oiKog) — 
and the house {oLKog) of Stephanas, were bap- 
tized, what would they, or what could they, un- 
derstand by the word in those several passages ? 
Would they not understand it according to its 
most natural import, its most generally received 
sense ? i. e., a man or woman's children by im- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 219 

mediate descent or adoption, infants included ? 
But if the system of the Baptists is Scriptural, 
and infants are not to be baptized, then the 
inspired penmen have used a word calculated 
to deceive both Jews and Greeks, This is not to 
be admitted ! ! 

We shall now adduce a few other texts, from 
the New Testament, on this point. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, where we find 
what Mr. Booth and Baptist writers generally 
call " the law of baptism" carried out in the 
practice of the apostles, the word oiKog occurs 
twenty-three times, and is always the word used 
where families are spoken of as having been 
baptized. Chap, xi, 12-14, the angel said to 
Cornelius, '^ Call for Simon, whose surname is 
Peter, who shall tell thee words whereby thou, 
and 'd\\ thy house, (ocKog,) shall be saved." See 
Acts xvi, 15, 31, 34. And in the eighteenth 
chapter it is used in a way calculated to show 
that Luke did not consider it as much like 
oiKta as the " English word brothers" is like 
"brethren." Seventh and eighth verses, "And 
he departed thence, and entered into a certain 
man's house {olklo) named Justus, one that 
worshipped God, whose house {olklo) joined 
hard to the synagogue." And when he speaks 
in the next verse of a family, he drops the word 
which he had used twice in the seventh verse, 
and adopts the word which is used in all the 
cases where family baptism is spoken of. " And 
Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, be- 
lieved on the Lord, with all his house (olko^ :) 



220 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed 
and were baptized." In Heb. xi, 7, it is said 
that " Noah prepared an ark to the saving of 
his house," (otKog.) We know that Noah and 
his family only are meant in this passage. 

Having already consumed more time on these 
words than I could well spare to a single point 
in the controversy, I must bring this part of the 
general argument to a close. My only apology 
to the reader, for having said so much on it, is 
found in the confident air with which Mr. B. 
denounced this criticism of my " editor," as he 
calls him. I cannot do better than close this 
article in the words of Mr. Taylor : " The na- 
tural import of the term otKog, family, includes 
children of all ages. In proof I offer you fifty 
examples; if ffty .^re not sufficient, I offer a 
hundred; if a hundred is not sufficient, two hun- 
dred ; if tioo hundred are not sufficient, four 
hundred. I affirm that oiKog very often ex- 
presses the presence of infants. Of this I offer 
you fifty examples, and if you admit classical 
instances, ^^y more. I tell you also, that some- 
what more than three hundred instances have 
been examined, and have proved perfectly satis- 
factory." — Concluding Facts, &c., pp. 13, 14. 

The intelligent reader can now judge whether 
I have built upon " mere presumption,^^ as Mr. B. 
says I have, (in maintaining " infant baptism" 
from the cases of household or family baptism 
recorded in the oracles of God,) or whether I 
have built upon the solid foundation of immutable 
truth and incontrovertible facts. To all, to every 



MODE OF BAPTISM. " 221 

candid parent in the land, I would address my- 
self, and say, " Your'^ children's " advocate must 
be yours.''' 

Before I proceed to the review of Mr. B.'s 
letters relative to the " mode of baptism," allow 
me a remark upon the closing paragraph of his 
eleventh letter. He says, " I will not sum up 
what I have written, lest you should think of 
my summary as I do of yours." This is in 
keeping with his first reason, for not being will- 
ing to engage in an oral discussion with me. 
If he had summed up what he had said in his 
letters, his readers could have seen more easily 
how small #a portion of my argument he had 
even attempted to answer. But I forget myself 
when I talk about arguments for Pedobaptist 
views. Mr. B. says, " there are none in the wide 
compass of creation''' But our readers will not 
believe this. They will give the word of God 
its plain, unsophisticated meaning, when their 
sight is not obscured by the dust raised by 
those who " darken counsel." And knowing, 
as the public do, that the term children means 
infants as well as larger children ; and know- 
ing also, that in any given district of country 
a majority of families have infants or young 
children in them, they naturally conclude that 
there must have been infants in some of those 
families baptized by the apostles. 

We shall now proceed to notice some things 
in the remaining ten letters, in which Mr. B. 
notices the " mode of baptism." 

He begins, on page 51, with the same fancy 



222 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

(which we replied to in the former argument) 

about the distinction between moral and positive 

institutions, and the explicit and ^'minutely de- 

fined^^ directions for the observance of the latter. 

He savs, " To me it is most obvious that a 

*' . . . 
positive institution must be minutely defined by 

the lawgiver, and obeyed to the very letter by 
the subject, or else it can be of no service what- 
ever." Observe, reader ! " minutely defined^ 
He refers to Leviticus xiv, where the ceremony 
of cleansing a leper is detailed. Why did he 
not quote a little more of the ceremony than the 
" dipping of the finger of the priest" in the oil ? 
If he had, the reader would have seen a case 
corroborating our views of the mode of baptism. 
For, although the leprous man washed his 
clothes and his person in water before he was 
presented at the door of the tabernacle of the 
congTegation, yet this he did himself in private ; 
but when the priest, the minister of God, 
went to perform the purification, or cleansing 
of the leper, both the blood and oil were 
SPRINKLED, and in the same manner was a 
leprous house to be cleansed. See verses 6-9, 
11, 16, 19, 51. 

As I had asked for " detailed, explicit direc- 
tions about the manner of performing the positive 
institutes'^ of circumcision and the Lord's sup- 
per, Mr. B. seems to feel bound to give them, 
and sets himself at work to furnish the explicit 
directions in both those cases. On the institute 
of circumcision, he says, "Read Gen. xvii, 11. 
I hope you will not suppose that any thing would 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 223 

have passed for circumcision, except what is 
there required." I wish Mr. B. had more fre- 
quently given the words of the passages he 
refers to, and this he might have done (by 
leaving out some of his many complaints) v^ith- 
out increasing the number of pages in his reply. 
Then his letters would have had in them fewer 
of the words of man, and more of the words of 
God, This by the way. As he did not give 
the reader the words of the law of circumcision, 
I shall have to do it ; here they are : " And ye 
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and 
it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me 
and you." Here are what he calls " explicit 
directions, "^^ a " miiiutely defined,^^ positive insti- 
tute. Does the reader see any explicitness in 
the directions ? Do they say who is to perform 
the rite? Perhaps Mr. B. will say the father 
was to be priest in the case. Very good. Then 
none other was qualified to perform it, for he 
says, " the law must be obeyed to the very letter f^ 
but then this will be opposed to \\\e facts. For 
although Abraham performed the rite for Ish- 
mael and the men of his house, verse 23, yet it 
is evident from verse 24 that he was not the 
operator in his own case. It is again far more 
evident, from Exod. iv, 25, and Luke i, 59, that 
neither Moses nor Zacharias performed the rite 
upon their sons, although the fathers were pre- 
sent in each case. I suppose, candid reader, 
you will hardly receive views that contradict 
facts. So it seems this law does not " minutely 
define" loho was to be the operator in keeping 



224 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

the law of circumcision. I ask again, With 
what kind of instrument was the rite to he per- 
formed ? Was it a knife ? Perhaps I shall be 
told it was. But then, a knife could not have 
been necessary to the valid performance of the 
rite, for the wdfe of Moses performed the rite 
upon her son with a '* sharp stone^'' Exod. iv, 25. 
I ask again, W^here was the rite to be performed, 
and at what time of the day or night ? The law 
does not specify ; Ishmael received the rite in 
his father's house ; Moses's son received it at 
an inn, and the people of Israel were circum- 
cised in the camp. Josh, v, 8. Now, I ask the 
candid reader, what has become of Mr. B.'s 
'• minutely defined^'' " explicit directions ^^'^ of the 
law of the positive ijistitute of circumcision ? 
They have vanished out of sight, and I incline 
to think you will not be able to discern them 
again, without the aid of Mr. B.'s microscopic 
glasses. But let us examine a little his " expli- 
cit directiojis'^ about the Lord's supper. Page 52, 
he says, " You inquire, also, whether the Scrip- 
tures give specific directions about the manner 
of attending to the Lord's supper. I answer, 
Yes, very explicit. Read 1 Cor. xi, 23 to 26, and 
you will see such a description as can leave us 
at no loss whatever on the subject." In this 
case, also, he does not favour us with the w^ords 
that contain the '^very explicif^ directions. Here 
they are, from St. Paul : " For I have received 
of the Lord that which also I deliv'ered unto you, 
that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which 
he was betrayed, took bread : and when he 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 225 

had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, 
eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you : 
this do in remembrance of me. After the same 
manner also he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying. This cup is the New Testament 
in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 
in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat 
this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
Lord's death till he come." Does the reader 
see any " very explicit directions''' here ? Does 
this passage specify the posture in which we are 
to receive the supper ? No : hence some take 
it kneeling^ some sitting, and others standitig. 
Does it specify the kind of bread to be used, 
whether leavened or unleavened, whether wheat 
or some other kind 1 I answer. No. Does it 
specify what kind of wine is to be used, whether 
red or white, fermented, or unfermented wine 1 
The reader knows it does not. Does it specify 
the quantity of each that is to be used by the 
communicant ? I answer again. It does not. 
And yet our Lord and his apostle have said, 
" This do." The simple fact, that bread and 
wine are to be taken, in remembrance of Christ, 
is all the specification there is in the passage. 
Water is to be applied to the subject in the 
institute of baptism, and bread and wine are to 
be used in the Lord's supper. So that Mr. B.'s 
" specified directions," " minutely defined," turn 
out to be of the same character with his *' ex- 
press warrant," his " Thus saith the Lord," for 
female communion. I remark, by the way, if 
the Baptists were never to immerse any person 
15 



226 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

until they find in the " law of baptism," as they 
call it, " minutely defined directions'^ for the ob- 
servance of the rite, we should soon have an 
end to baptism hy immersion. But when they 
are pressed here, they say the Scriptures know 
nothing for baptism but " believers' immersion ;" 
and when you demand the proof, they fly to the 
word baptizo, and tell you gravely that the " ex- 
plicit directions'^ are all in that word. They take 
care, however, not to go to the original meaning 
of SeLTTvov^ the word used, 1 Cor. xi, 20, for the 
supper : because that signifies not simply a 
meal, but was used for the principal meal 
among the Greeks. They know there is no 
consistency in crying out for much water in one 
sacrament, and being content to consider the 
law of the other sacrament fully complied with, 
in eating a small piece of bread and tasting wine. 
We are told by a certain Baptist writer, who 
saw the difficulty here hinted at, " It is not ne- 
cessary to take much bread and wine in the 
Lord's supper, in order to comply with the 
command, ' Do this,' because the action is the 
same, in eating, whether we eat little or much.** 
I answer. In baptism it is not necessary to use 
much water, because the element is the same, 
whether we use little or inuch ; unless, indeed, 
it can be shown that there is a charm in the 
elements used in the sacraments. If this can 
be shown, then the larger the quantity used in 
either the better. I suppose, however, this will 
not be attempted, especially by those who profess 
to be so much afraid of encouraging j^?C|p^>A errors. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 227 

It might, we think, be easily shown that, 
according to the position laid down by Mr. B. 
relative to '^positive institutes^'' and the neces- 
sity of a literal compliance ivith every circumstance 
connected with their institution, 7io denomina- 
tion of Christians, the Baptists not excepted, 
do at this day properly observe the sacrament 
of the Lord's supper. 1. It was instituted at 
night. 2. Only men were present at it. 3. Un- 
leavened bread doubtless was used, because the 
Jews kept no other kind in their houses at the 
time of the passover. 4. It was celebrated in 
an upper room. 5. It was celebrated at a par- 
ticular time of the year, &c. Now Mr. B. says, 
" A positive institute must be minutely defined 
by the lawgiver, and obeyed to the very letter 
by the subject, or else it can be of no service 
whatever." This, the reader will observe, 
stands opposed to Mr. B.'s own practice, in 
the observance of the sacrament of the supper. 
This literal conformity he did not intend should 
be pressed against his own practice. He only 
mentioned it in connection with circumcision 
and the Lord's supper, because, in my former 
argument, I had placed those cases against his 
theory. So I return to the gentleman one of 
the many compliments of his Letters, " The 
legs of the lame are not equal." 

Mr. B, repeats a part of what he said in his 
Strictures and Sermon about King James, the 
bishops, and translators, and says, " The pre- 
sent version, with all its defects, is against 
sprinkling,''^ And adds, " I only complain that 



228 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

it is not 7nore against sprinkling than it is." As 
the Baptists have withdrawn from the Ameri- 
can Bible Society, because the board would not 
appropriate funds to make a different translation 
in a foreign tongue from the common version, I 
suppose they will soon have a version of their 
own, and this gentleman may then be suited. 
It is due to many of the liberal minded Baptists, 
however, to say, that they disapprove of this 
measure. I suppose they think well of the 
" common version," as did the learned Drs. 
Middleton and Doddridge, and Dr. John Taylor 
of Norwich, although he held a different creed 
from that held by the bishops. 

I made no charge ao;ainst Mr. B. relative to 
the translators and bishops which is not fully 
sustained by his own statements. He repre- 
sented, in the Sermon, page 28, that the trans- 
lators " were so fully convinced that the Greek 
verb haptizo ought to be translated immerse^ that 
we should have had it immerse in our version, 
but for the interposition of the bishops." In the 
Strictures, page 13, he says, "But our trans- 
lators being all opposed to immersion^ it is no^ 
wonder they did not render the word into Eng- 
lish." And yet he says, " I have not charged 
the translators and bishops with making a trans- 
lation to favour sprinkling." And says of me, 
that I have, in this case, " dealt freely in the 
article of misrepresentation." The candid 
reader will be able to judge, from his words 
given above, whether I have " borne false wit- 
ness" against him ; or whether he has not de- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 229 

nied his own charge, formerly made against 
those "dead men ;" '^ If he is ashamed of it now, 
it is well r It would be well also, if he Avould 
examine always what he has said, before he 
enters his flat denial of things alleged against 
him. It is unpleasant to me to be compelled, 
in self-defence, thus to expose the gentleman's 
contradictions of his own statements. 

On page 54 he says, that the reason why I 
have found it necessary to preach so often on 
baptism is, that " the people have not learning 
and ingenuity enough to find sprinkling or pour- 
ing for baptism in the present version" of the 
Scriptures. And concludes that, as " many of 
our people are, at one time or another, uneasy 
about baptism, there must be some ' glorious 
uncertainty' about the sprinkling and pouring." 
And he judged this last sentence so important, 
that it was necessary to call attention to it by 
marking it with two |l5^ci§;i|. 

It is true, candid reader, that some Pedobap- 
tist people get uneasy sometimes on the subject 
of baptism by immersion ; I have not, however, 
known of many cases of the kind ; and when 
they have occurred, so far as my observation 
has extended, their uneasiness has not arisen 
half so often from reading the Bible, as from 
having enjoyed the company or conversation 
of some artful immersionist. And where our 
people have the Bible, and the Spirit of God to 
guide them, and none to perplex their minds, we 
hardly ever find it necessary to speak of the 
mode of baptism. We have passed whole years 



230 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 

in some places without preaching one sermon 
on the subject, where our people had not been 
exposed to the " sleight of men" who seek on all 
occasions to make proselytes to opinions about 
ceremonies, with more zeal than- to teach men 
how to " WORSHIP God in Spirit and in 

TRUTH !" 

He closes his twelfth letter wath an anec- 
dote about an Indian who had a Bible given 
him by a Pedobaptist missionary, which be- 
came instrumental in his salvation. The mis- 
sionary meeting with the Indian afterward, 
proposed to have water brought in a pitcher to 
a meeting house, in order to baptize the Indian. 
The latter was astonished at the proposition ; 
because, as he said, the book told him '' that 
they baptized in a river, and where there was 
much water, and were buried in baptism." 
And he told the missionary, " he must give him 
another hookP 

Now, candid reader, this same Indian story 
looks very much as if it vms made for effect, and 
I strongly suspect that some one of a lighter 
skin had something to do with its fabrication. 
It may have '' Esau's hands,"*^ but it certainly 
** has Jacobus voice,^^ and it may impose upon 
some blind Isaac. Mr. B. says, he "does not 
vouch for the truth of the story." I judge this 
Indian story to be of a piece with the " negro" 
story which he tells in his Letters ; and the 
story about the lady who was visited by several 
ministers, whose husband finally " concluded 
that it was safest for her to be immersed^ All 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 231 

such stories are but tubs for the whale. We could 
tell some story, too, of an opposite description, 
if we did not consider such business degrading 
to the understanding of the writer, and an insult 
to the intelligence of the reader. 

But suppose this " Indian story" is literally 
true, what then? Is it not extremely likely that 
he had, previously to seeing the missionary at 
the meeting house, fallen in with some wander- 
ing " new-light Baptist" in the " Great Valley," 
and had taken a lesson or two from him? Or^ 
if it occurred recently, possibly he may have met 
with a copy of Mr. B.^s Strictures, if any copies 
have, by any means, reached the Valley of the 
Mississippi. For I am very certain that the 
Indian, reading in the " book" which the mis- 
sionary gave him of the baptisms of the jailer, 
Saul, and Cornelius and his family, saw nothing 
about either " a river," or " much water." And 
suppose the missionary did propose to have 
water brought in " a pitcher,^^ he might have 
pleaded a very good precedent for his practice. 
For, as early as the middle of the third century, 
*' when Laurentius was brought to the stake to 
suffer martyrdom, a soldier who was employed 
as one of his executioners professed to be con- 
verted, and requested baptism from the hands 
of the martyr. For this purpose a pitcher of 
water was brought, and the soldier baptized at 
the place of execution." — See Dr. Wall, as 
quoted by Dr. Miller. Here we have one of 
the " noble army of martyrs" using water from 
a pitcher for the purpose of administering the 



232 OBLIGATIO-V, SUBJECTS, AND 

ordinance ; and that, too, under circumstances 
so solemn, that none would dare to trifle with 
this ordinance of God. So much for Mr. B.'s 
Indian, pitcher, d^c. 

Mr. B. attempts, page 57, by a quibble, to 
evade what I had said about his translation of 
Luther's " Johannes der Taufer.'^ Why did he 
not deny that my interpretation was correct, in- 
stead of saying he could com-ince ray friend, 
from Luther's Bible, that Luther meant John the 
Dipper? I have been assured by several Ger- 
man scholars, and have found, by consulting a 
large German and English Dictionar}', that my 
former interpretation was perfectly correct. 

Mr. B. says, page 58, that the creed makers 
at Westminster came within one vote of deciding 
in favour of immersion^ and that, but for the cast- 
ing vote of Dr. Lightfoot, we should have had 
the Presbyterians contending for ^^ immersion." 
And then alludes to ]\Ir. CampbelFs having 
criticised his sermon from the pulpit for two 
days. I do not know that it is niy province to 
be the defender of the venerable men who com- 
posed the Westminster Assembly; I will, how- 
ever, say, that !Mr. B. has misrepresented them 
in the statement above given. Neal, in his 
History- of the Puritans, says, that " the Direc- 
tory (containing the baptismal ser\4ce) passed 
the assembly with great unanimity T Mr. B. 
has not given the authority upon which he has 
made his statement. And for a full refutation 
of it, I refer the reader to Miller on Baptism, 
pages 147, 148 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 233 

I have now, candid reader, reached that point 
in Mr. B.'s Letters, page 59, where he attempts 
to vindicate himself upon the charge of having 
mutilated the writings of Pedohaptist authors. 
He begins with Dr. Clarke. After reading his 
vindication of himself, and his attempt to show 
that I had been guilty of the same thing which 
I had charged upon him, I thought, at first, per- 
haps I had committed some oversight in the case. 
I accordingly reviewed the matter as it stood in 
the Appeal, and compared it with the doctor's 
note on Rom. vi, 4, and find that I have been 
guilty of not quoting all the doctor has said in 
his commentary on baptism. I have cut no 
sentence in tv^^o ; and as for shortening the 
paragraph, by leaving off two complete sen- 
tences at the end of it, that did not in any mea^ 
sure affect the argument, or the sense of the 
note. What I complained of in Mr. B. was, 
that he had given Dr. Clarke as a witness to 
prove immersion as the exclusive mode, and that 
BAPTizo means to immerse, and nothing else ; 
and that, in attempting to make this to appear, 
he had cut one of the doctor's sentences in two, 
by which a different sense was given to the note 
than the reader would have received in reading 
the whole of that part of the note that referred 
to the subject of baptism. Mr. B. seems deter- 
mined now to make amends for having given 
but part of a sentence in his Strictures. He 
says, " I will here give the whole sentence,^^ &c.; 
he then proceeds, and quotes, not a whole sen- 
tence only, but jive sentences, I suppose he 



234 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

thouglit he had as well give the reader the 
whole, as / had already given all that was mate^ 
rial to the question. He says, on the subject of 
dividing the sentence, and giving part of it as 
though it were the whole, '* As to using a period, 
I could not close the sentence without it ; and 
I hope you will not require a man to quote all 
that another waiter says, in order to avoid muti- 
lating.''^ I do not expect a man who quotes a 
writer to give all he says, but I do expect that 
he shall give enough truly to represent the views 
of the author. But this gentleman could not 
close the sentence without a period. What he 
quoted teas 7iot a sentence, and, therefore, ought 
not to have been closed. Surely, as this gentle- 
man is a teacher, he knows that a quotation can 
be finished as well with a colon, semicolon, or 
comma, as with a period. I ask now again, 
Does Dr. Clarke's note prove that to immerse 
is the only sense ofhaptizo ? for this is the point 
that he was brought by Mr. B. to prove, Strictures, 
page 15. His words are, "But this (baptizo) 
is an obstinate word. It has but one meaning — 
these learned men knew it — and their candour 
forced them to acknowledge it." I boldly affirm 
that they never did acknowledge it. Dr. C.'s 
language with regard to this word is. Matt, iii, 
6, " Were the people dipped or sprinkled ? for 
it is CERTAIN bapto and baptizo mean both." 

Mr. B. may write as many explanations and 
vindications as he pleases, but while his 
Strictures exist, they will fully sustain all 
that I have said of him, on this case, in my 



xMODE OF BAPTISM. 235 

Appeal, to which I beg leave to refer the 
reader. 

As it regards what the gentleman says about 
" confessing my folly, and asking forgiveness,^^ 
and about his " being one of the first to forgive 
me, in the event of my asking forgiveness," &c., 
I would only observe, it is a feature of " my 
creed" that confession is a part of repentance, 
and that conviction always precedes it. Hence, 
for the want of conviction that I have done any 
wrong in the premises, I cannot repent or ask 
pardon. The conviction I have at present is, 
that Mr. B. deserved all he got in my first argu- 
ment, and that he is now desirous of getting out 
of the dilemma in the best way he can, under 
cover of the dust raised by him in his Letters. 
I invite any candid man ' to take his Strictures 
and compare them with what I have said, for 
proof of the above. See Strictures, pp. 13-15 ; 
Appeal, from page 104 to 111. 

He next attempts to clear himself from the 
charge with regard to Mr. Wesley, page 61, and 
begins by confessing that he "had, m mistake, 
put Dr. Doddridge's words into Mr. Wesley's 
mouth in the Strictures ; but that in his Sermon 
he had given the quotation exact." I ask. Does 
that prove the point he had undertaken to make 
out? He had asserted that Mr. Wesley '^pre- 
ferred immersion,^'' — that " he had acknowledged 
that haptizo had but one meaning." Whereas 
Mr. W. says, " The greatest scholars, and most 
proper judges in the matter, testify that the 
original term (haptizo) means not dipping, but 



236 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

washing or cleansing.*' I ask the candid reader, 
Is this an acknowledgment ? What I complained 
of was, that he should take part of a sentence 
from Mr. W.'s Notes, and the circumstances of 
Parker's child, and Mary Welch, from his Jour- 
nal, to make out that ^Ir. W. favoured his views : 
and with Mr. W.'s Works in his hands, contain- 
ing positive evidence to the contrary^ he should 
still abuse the minds of his readers with this 
partial testimony concerning that good man's 
actual sentiments. 

Mr. B. did not quote Mr. Wesley on Colos. 
ii, 12, he says, either in his printed Sermon or 
while delivering it, '* because he could see no 
meaning in it." And he thought he had satisfied 
'' my friend" of it in the conversation they had 
after the sermon was preached. This gentle- 
man thinks my " friend" like Goldsmith's school- 
master — " though convinced, he can argue still." 
Now, I undertake to say that ISlx. B. never did 
either convince or " vanquish'' him. I suppose 
he did not like to quote Goldsmith correctly, and 
say, •• though vanquished, he can argue still," 
lest those who know the circumstances of that 
conversation should think hjs boasting unau- 
thorized by the true state of the case. 

Mr. B. says, page 63, that '' I seem to have 
found it necessary to apologize for Mr. Wesley." 
I remark, when ]^Ir. W. is not misrepresented 
he needs no apologist. And / blush for Mr. B. 
that he should make it necessary for 7ne to become 
the vindicator, not the " apologist,''^ of a man 
whose name is interwoven with that revival of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 237 

the work of God which commenced in the last 
century ; and whose fame shaU be more im- 
perishable than the foundations of empires. 
I "apologise" for Mr. John Wesley !! "His 
works bear witness of him." I only attempted 
to remove the dust that had been thrown upon 
his " fair escutcheon." 

While I am upon the subject of Mr. W.'s 
testimony, I would just observe to the reader, 
that Mr. B. seems to have suspected his readers 
would " be surprised at his frequent references 
to Mr. W.," and sets about assigning the reason, 
viz., " that the large proportion of the congrega- 
tion assembled to hear the sermon were Meth- 
odists." — Sermon, p. 10. Now, admitting this 
statement to be true, what was to be gained by 
attempting to prove to Methodists that Mr. 
Wesley held one thing on the subject of baptism, 
and practised another? Was this the quintes- 
sence of politeness^ to tell a congregation, "the 
large proportion of whom were Methodists," 
that the founder of their sect was an incon- 
sistent man, and that he held " baptismal regene- 
ration^'' and entertained, indeed, " worse views 
on baptism than Mr. Alexander Campbell ?" 
And this, too, from a gentleman who writes 
about " common politeness /" This I have v/ritten 
upon the supposition that the statement is true. 
I now pronounce it to be utterly without founda- 
tion, unless this gentleman has some mode of 
calculation that I have never heard of, by which 
he can make it appear that fifteen or twenty 
Methodists are "the large proportion of a con- 



238 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS. AXD 

gregation" of several hundred persons. Perhaps 
Mr. B. vras misinformed about his auditors. I 
am willing to hope he was. At the same time 
I am afraid he is very liable to be imposed upon 
by those who may imagine they please him, or 
advantage their cause, by repeating silly tales, or 
things not founded in fact. Of this character is 
the silly story of Mr. Toplady, page 80, about 
" Mr^ Wesley's having immersed a woman in 
a hogshead. '^ He knows, candid reader, that 
Mr. Toplady was one of Mr. Wesley's bitterest 
opponents, and that he was quite as much exas- 
perated at Mr. W. as i\Ir. B. has been at me. 
Even religious men, under such circumstances, 
can sometimes consent to gratify one of the 
worst feelings of human nature, by retailing 
marvellous stories about an opponent, if they can 
only get some one else to endorse them, v/hether 
they themselves believe them or not. Mr. Top- 
lady thought that sin could not hurt the elect. 
Query, Is Mr. B. less partial now to this gentle- 
man's views than formerly? 

His next attempt is to show that he has not 
misrepresented Professor Stuart's views, and 
gravely says to me, '• If you examine his essay," 
&LC. Does he suppose I have not examined it? 
He knows / have examined it, quite sufficiently 
to show the reader that Professor Stuart, so far 
from confirming ]\Ir. Carson's view of baptize, 
says expressly, page 100, that *' Mr. Carson 
lays down some very adventurous positions in 
respect to words having one meaning only; 
which, as it seems to me, every leocican on earth 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 239 

contradicts, and always must contradict V And 
yet Mr. 'B. persists in making the professor a 
witness for immersion, as the only sense of 
haptizo. And says, page 59, that he (Stuart) 
" acknowledges, or rather affirms, that all lexi- 
cographers and critics of any note have assigned 
to it {haptizo) the same meaning that Carson 
does," — while Carson, the reader will observe, 
confesses that " all lexicographers and com- 
mentators are against him in that opinion." — 
Carson on Baptism, page 79, as quoted by Dr. 
Miller. 

Here, according to Mr. B., Professor Stuart 
contradicts Mr. Carson. Stuart says, all lexi- 
cographers of any note agree with Carson in 
opinion ; Carson says, all lexicographers are 
against him in opinion. Yerily, here is a dis- 
crepancy ! I beg leave to refer the intelligent 
reader to my former argument for Professor 
Stuart's views ; and for a fuller account of them, 
to his Essay on the Mode of Baptism. 

In every case which I have examined of the 
Pedobaptist authorities quoted by Mr. B., I have 
found the remark of Peter Edwards to hold 
good, i. e., " that those writers are made to con- 
cede what they never meant to concede.'''' 

On page 69, Mr. B. quotes Dr. Doddridge, 
/ think unfairly, in the words following : " It 
seems the part of candour to confess, that here 
(Rom. Yi, 4) is an alhision to the manner of 
baptizing by immersion." This, the reader will 
observe, he makes a full sentence, putting a 
period in the place where the doctor has a 



240 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

comma. But the gentleman says, " he cannot 
close a sentence toithout a period J^ Then surely 
he should not close it at all until he has given 
the whole, especially if leaving out a part mars 
the sense. 

The doctor's words are, " It seems the part 
of candour to confess, that here is an allusion 
to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as 
most. usual in these early times; hut that will not 
prove this particular circumstance to he essen- 
tial TO THE ORDINANCE." The reader can 
compare these quotations, and see whether they 
give the same idea of the doctor's views. 

When I deem it expedient, and have nothing 
more important to engage my attention, I may 
perhaps be at the pains to examine some others 
of Mr. B.'s abused critics. I have no doubt 
they have all been treated pretty much alike. 

On pages 65, QQ, Mr. B. introduces again the 
subject of " baptismal regeneration," and has 
made a pitiful attempt to show his readers that 
Mr. Wesley built infant baptism upon that doc- 
trine. Hear him : " Any man of candour and 
common sense must see that Mr. Wesley held 
it, and built infant baptism upon it." And he 
adds, " and besides this foundation, none other 
can be laid upon which the baptism of infants 
can stand." Does not the reader see in this 
an attempt to narrow dozen the evidence for infant 
baptism to this single point ? He says, " I have 
charged Mr. Wesley, both from the pulpit and 
the press, with advocating the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration." Mark that ! Is not this 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 241 

a mere blind ? Have ten intelligent men ever 
dreamed of it, in reading Mr. W.'s treatise of 
baptism 1 To take isolated passages from the 
writings of a man, wresting them from their 
proper connection, is not a fair way of coming 
at his true sentiments on any given point. And 
indeed, after Mr. B. has adduced his testimony, 
what does it prove ? That we are regenerated 
by baptism ? Not at all. By what, then ? By 
grace. Here are the words : " By baptism we, 
who were, by nature, children of wrath, are 
made the children of God. And this regene- 
ration, which our church, in so many places, 
ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being 
admitted into the church, though commonly con- 
nected therewith ; being grafted into the body 
of Christ's church, we are made the children of 
God by adoption and graced He then adds, 
This is grounded on the plain words of our 
Lord, " Except a man be born of loater and of 
the Spirit,^^ &c., and quotes the words of the 
apostle, where he calls baptism " the washing 
of regeneration." He then adds, " Nor does she 
(the church) ascribe it to the outward washing, 
but to the inward grace,^^ &c. Query, Has Mr. 
Broaddus any method by which people can be 
regenerated, and made children of God, other 
than " by inward grace V Mr. W., in his ser- 
mon on the " new birth," after quoting the ques- 
tions and answers in the Church Catechism, 
says, " Nothing, therefore, is plainer than that, 
according to the Church of England, baptism 
IS NOT THE NEW BIRTH." I refer the reader 
16 



242 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

to his Sermons and Treatise on Baptism, for 
further evidence that Mr. B., in charging Mr. 
Wesley, from the pulpit and the press, with 
holding baptismal regeneration, has chqrged him 
falsely. I would advise him, in future, to pay 
more regard to the ninth commandment, Exod. 
XX, 16, especially when men have gone up to 
heaven, and cannot answer for themselves. 

I might accuse the apostle Peter, in the very 
same way, with holding that we are " saved by 
baptism ;" for he says, " The like figure where- 
unto, even baptism doth also now save us.^^ But 
the apostle explains himself, and so does Mr. 
Wesley. If the candid reader will examine 
Mr. W.'s Treatise on Baptism, he will see that 
he rests infant baptism, not on baptismal rege- 
neration, (as Mr. B. says he does,) but upon 
sound reason and Scripture evidence. If I 
could find a dead giant, how I could brandish 
my sword over him without fear !! ! "I have 
CHARGED Mr. Wesley from the pulpit and the 
press r^ Who is this "giant warrior," that 
" aims his blows" at the high and the low, and 
striding along, recklessly treads alike upon the 
feelings of the living, and the ashes of the 
" mighty dead ?" 

But Mr. B. says, the public want light on the 
subject of Methodist views of baptism. Does 
he mean the community at large ? or does he 
mean the Baptist public ? Some of them, at least, 
had better use the light they already have, before 
they *' call for moVe" with regard to our views. 
Some of them have refused to read the Appeal 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 243 

when it was offered them gratuitously. It would 
surely be of no avail to such^ however plainly 
cind fully I might answer on this subject. 

I am not aware that our people, or the '' ruling 
powers," (as this gentleman calls the ministry,) 
hold the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration" 
either in the case of infants or aduhs. The 
views of the Methodists, as a denomination, 
have been long before the world ; for we have 
a published creed. If Mr. B.'s " public" want 
light with regard to our views, I beg leave to 
refer them to our Articles of Religion in our 
Discipline, and to the " Wesleyan Methodist 
Catechism," Nos. 1, 2, 3, published at the Book 
Room, New-York. 

He makes an attempt, page 71, to explain 
away the view I gave of the baptism of the 
Israelites in the Red Sea ; and will have it, 
that if water from the cloud and the sea came 
on them, they were baptized twice. This was 
a baptism of men, loomen, and children; and for 
a full answer to Mr. B. relative to the mode of 
its administration, I refer the candid reader to 
my former argument on this point. He is so 
much pleased with his fancy that Mr. Wesley 
andJ disagree in our views of the condition of 
infants, that, on page 72, he brings it forward 
again. I deem it unnecessary to add any thing 
to what I have said on that subject in the former 
part of this argument. 

In reply to Mr. B.'s remarks on the Greek 
prepositions, page 73, I have but a single ob- 
servation or two to make. My criticism on the 



244 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

preposition has been pronounced " perfectly 
correct"' by a gentleman critically acquainted 
with the Greek language, and who is less inte- 
rested in this controversy than either Mr. B. or 
myself, and therefore more entitled to credit. 
For we have seen, in the case of Dr. Carson, 
how the support of '' a theory*' can induce a 
man to contradict " all lexico2fraphers and com- 
mentators." The Baptists hold that ice are to he 
baptized in imitation of Christ; of course, then, 
if we find any difficulty in understanding the 
meaning of the prepositions in any case of 
baptism subsequent to his, it will be fair to 
refer to the pattern given in the case of his 
baptism for a solution of the difficulty. Well, 
then, where the baptism of Christ is spoken of, 
the term ano is used, the primary meaning of 
which, according to Parkhurst's Lexicon, is 
FROM, av:ay from. 

^' And straightway coming up {a'lro) out of the 
water," INIark i, 10. Xow, as Mr. B. will con- 
tend for the primary meaning of prepositions, 
let him take the primary meaning of qto, and 
the evidence for immersion drawn from the 
baptism of Christ vanishes. Instead of his 
emerging from beneath the water, it will appear 
that he only came up from the river, which he 
might do, without having wet so much as the 
sole of his foot. If the apostles followed the 
*' pattern showed" them in the '• ^Master's" case, 
we must interpret the prepositions used in the 
cases recorded in the Acts of the Apostles ac- 
cording to the primary meaning of a-o, i. e., 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 245 

FROM — away from. Thus the reader will per- 
ceive that the evidence which the Baptists 
attempt to draw from the preposition in favour 
of immersion is only a fancy of theirs to aid in 
the support of " a theory." 

Mr. B. asks, page 73, " Mr. S., who told you 
that Saul of Tarsus and the family of Cornelius 
were baptized in a house ?" I answer. The 
words of St. Luke set forth, that they were in 
the house when the preaching took place, and 
do not say Ahd^i they went out of the house to 
receive baptism. If Mr. B. will say that they 
did go out for the purpose of receiving baptism, 
then it is not with me, but with himself, to furnish 
the proof of it. In Acts ix, 17-19, we have the 
case of Saul: "And Ananias entered into the 
house; and putting his hands on him, &c. — 
and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and 
was baptized. And when he had received meat, 
he was strengthened." Now I say, he received 
baptism in the house. And if this gentleman has 
any evidence that he received it out of doors, it 
would be more becoming in him to present his 
evidence, instead of asking such questions. 

On page 74, Mr. B. again, the third time, in- 
troduces the case of Mr. G. of Culpepper, who, 
he says, " baptized, by immersion, seventy-five 
persons in twenty-five minuter, as can easily be 
proved : this was three to a minute ; and I am 
sure I have never seen three sprinkled in one 
minute in my life ; neither have I ever heard 
of it." After Mr. B. had given the public this 
Culpepper case in his Strictures and Sermon, 



246 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

I did hope, for^^he credit of religion, he would 
say no niore about it. Here is the absurd spec- 
tacle presented of a minister of God administer- 
ing one of the solemn sacraments of the gospel 
against time, and " several gentlemen of un- 
doubted veracity holding their watches in their 
hands, and declaring this to be the result." 
This seems to be a favourite case with our 
Baptist friends ; Elder G. as well as Mr. B. 
has taken occasion to make use of it. It seems, 
truly, to have been an experiment made in the 
county of Culpepper for the benefit of the Bap- 
tist cause throughout the world, in order to show 
that Peter and his companions, on the day of 
Pentecost, could have dipped the three thousand 
in the short time allowed for the administration 
of the ordinance. Before this case can be made 
to prove any thing in favour of their cause, it 
must be shown that the apostles of our Lord 
would hurry, as Mr. G. did, in giving the ordi- 
nance. But why need those elders go all the 
way to Culpepper to look up this case of bap- 
tism, in order to tell the world how long it 
requires to give the ordinance by immersion ? 
Have they never administered it to a sufficient 
number at once to enable them to form an 
opinion about the length of time required? I 
suppose they have never made an experiment. 
Mr. B. " never heard o/* three heiiig sprinkled 
in one minute /" And we hope he never will; for 
Pedobaptist ministers do not perform the ordi- 
nances of God against time. So much for his 
Culpepper case. He thinks, the fact that Pedo- 



m6de of baptism. 247 

baptists attempt to prove that John's was not 
Christian baptism is sufficient evidence that 
they considered John gave the ordinance " by 
immersion ;" I have only to say, this argument 
proves nothing, because all the views which 
we take of the nature of John's baptism are 
sustained by Robert Hall in his argument for 
open communion, and I suppose he will not be 
suspected of being influenced by Pedobaptist 
motives in this case. 

On page 75, after giving a caricature of the 
practice of Pedobaptists in administering the 
ordinance, he proceeds to notice the argument 
for pouring in baptism, drawn from the neces- 
sity of a resemblance between the sign and the 
thing signijied. He attempts to make out that 
the effects of the Spirit, and not the manner of 
its communication, are to be represented by 
baptism. This is a new discovery of the gentle- 
man's, by which he hopes to evade the argu- 
ment. He was quite contented to suppose be- 
fore that the Spirit was poured out until the place 
was filled, and they were thereby immersed ; 
but after my exploding that fancy in my former 
argument, he has of course to look out for some 
other imagination or invention to help the cause. 
Now he says, " My dear sir, I hope you will 
give up this fancy ; and be contented to have 
the effects of the Spirit's influences represented 
by baptism ;" and asks " if the effects are so 
partial as to be better represented by pouring 
or sprinkling tHhn by immersion?" I answer, 
The eiffects of the extraordinary influence of the 



248 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

Spirit are more truly represented by sprinkling 
than by immersioii ; and the proof is easy. Al- 
though we hear some talk of the fulness^ the 
plenitude of spiritual gifts ; yet what says the 
apostle Paul to the Corinthian church? Al- 
though they had all been baptized with the 
Spirit, each individual, instead of having a fuU 
ness of spiritual gifts, possessed only one; "For 
to one is given by the Spirit the word of wis- 
dom ; to another, the word of knowledge ; to 
another, faith ; to another, the gifts of healing ; 
to another, the working of miracles ; to another, 
prophecy ; to another, discerning of spirits ; to 
another, divers kind of tongues ; to another, the 
interpretation of tongues ; but all these worketh 
that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to 
every man severally as he will." See 1 Cor. 
xii, 8-11. Now, a small portion of water would 
be quite sufficient to represent a single spiritual 
gift. 

He says, page 76, " The baptism of the Spirit 
was only d. figurative baptism. I hope you will 
not suppose that the Spirit was literally poured 
out from heaven ! That influence by which the 
disciples were enabled to speak with tongues 
was altogether an influence of mind upon mind. 
How, then, can any material element ever re- 
present the manner of it ?" / do suppose that the 
Spirit was poured out; and that for the best pos- 
sible reason, viz., the word of God says it was. 
And I hope never to ^^ figure'^ away the plain 
common sense meaning of the book of God. If 
I could not support my cause without that, I 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 249 

would abandon it for ever. We do not pretend 
to explain the manner in which mind (as he has 
it) acts upon mind. We only implicitly believe 
what the Holy Ghost declares, i. e., '' On the 
Gentiles also (as well as the Jews) was poured 
OUT the gift o/tb.^ Holy Ghost." And as it 
is said, " It fell on all them which heard 
the word," we suppose that " it was poured out 
from lieavenP 

This same matter of the pouring out of the 
Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost is exceed- 
ingly perplexing to this gentleman. On page 77 
he advances an entirely new view of the matter. 
He has discovered now that there were none of 
the disciples present when the Holy Ghost was 
poured out, except the twelve apostles. He 
says, " You spake as if the hundred and twenty 
were in the room when the baptism of the Spirit 
occurred. I deny it. Read the last verse of the 
first chapter, and the first verse of the second, 
and you will see that none but the twelve are 
mentioned as being together." Now, candid 
reader, I have read the passage, perhaps as 
often as this gentleman, and cannot see any 
such thing; and how should / see it, when Mr. 
A. Campbell could not discover that there were 
only the twelve present. On the contrary, 
he saw a hundred and twenty present. In his 
debate, page 376, in attempting to give an ex- 
press warrant for female communion, he says, 
*' The number of the whole was about a hun- 
dred and twenty, chap, ii, 1. On the day of 
Pentecost, they (the hundred and twenty) were 



250 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

ALL with one accord in one placed How strange 
that two Baptist elders should differ so much in 
opinion about a plain matter of fact, and each 
refer their readers to the same passage for his 
proof! The reader must take notice, that they 
were both but trying to evade a different Pedo- 
baptist argument. The intelligent reader, how- 
ever, will conclude that the word of God is not 
like a heathen oracle, that will give out one 
answer at one time, and a contrary one at an- 
other, just to suit the whims of different priests. 
The passage says there were one hundred and 
twenty when Mr. C. wants an express warrant 
for female communion : but when Mr. B. wants 
to evade the difficulty I had presented in the 
way of HIS theory, then the passage says there 
were hut twelve present ! This gentleman, how- 
ever, not only contradicts Mr. Campbell and me, 
but he contradicts himself also, as the reader can 
easily discover, by looking at his Sermon, page 
35, where he says, " The seventy, no doubt, were 
presenf'^ at the baptizing. It is a great pity that 
a man who attempts to support error should 
have a bad memory, and should thus be ex- 
posed to the danger of unsaying at one time 
what he has said at another ! Perhaps he will 
say, only the twelve were present at the pouring 
out of the Spirit, and that the seventy came 
afterward, to help with, or witness the baptizing. 
If he should take this course, the reader can 
consult the first chapter of Acts, from the 
fifteenth verse to the end, and there he will 
discover, without the aid of any commentator, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 251 

that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES 

WERE present on the occasion, 

Mr, B. says, that "the influences of the Spi- 
rit, by which men are brought to repent and 
turn to God, are nowhere in the Bible called 
baptism. I can never believe a man baptized 
with the Holy Ghost, in the Scripture sense of 
that expression, unless he confirms his preten- 
sions by speaking in all manner of tongues." 
Then it will follow, that when John the Baptist 
said, " I baptize you with water, he shall baptize 
you with fire and the Holy Ghost,^^ he wished 
the multitude to understand they should receive 
the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, and 
have power to ^' speak all manner of tongues ;^^ 
for Mr. B. will not admit that they received this 
baptism, unless the sign followed. Did ever 
any man, in his sober senses, suppose that 
John meant the miraculous powers of the Holy 
Ghost? 

On page 77 he says, " The Scriptures no- 
where speak of baptism as a representation of 
the Spirit's influences. It is a representation 
of the burial and resurrection of Jesus." And 
referring to Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, he says, 
" St. Paul understood it so." Then John the 
Baptist should have said to the multitude. He 
\ shall be buried and arise from the dead, therefore, 
' I am come baptizing with water. Let the 
reader consult John i, 28-34, and he will dis- 
cover that the Baptist gives a diflferent view of 
this matter from that given above by Mr. B. 
He declares that he came baptizing with water, 



252 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

because the Son of God would give a baptism 
of fire and the Holy Ghost. Christ himself 
gives the same view. Acts i, 5, " John baptized 
with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost." In Acts xi, 15, 16, Peter gives 
the same view, "And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell ox them, as on us at the 
beginning. Then remembered I the word of 
the Lord, John indeed baptized with water ^ but 
ye shall be baptized v;ith the Holy Ghost.^^ The 
reader can now judge who is most to be credited 
in this case, ]Mr. B. or the authorities I have 
quoted. Added to all this, if baptism represented 
the burial and resurrection of Christy how did it 
happen that the disciples, after witiiessing and 
performing thousands of baptisms, were pro- 
foundly ignorant of the thing represented ? For, 
up to the eve of Christ's crucifixion, yea, even 
after he had been crucified, they did not under- 
stand that he was to arise from the dead. See 
Mark ix, 10, and John xx, 9, " They questioned 
one with another v:liat the rising from the dead 
should mean. For as yet they knew not the 
Scripture, that he must rise again from the 
dead." But Mr. B. will have it, that it was re- 
presented to them in every one of the thousands 
of cases of baptism w^hich they witnessed. Is 
it possible he can so presume upon the credulity 
of his readers, as to suppose that one in a thou- 
sand can be made to believe in this fancy ^ — 
this far-fetched conceit, that baptism represented^ 
not the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, but " the 
burial and resurrectioii of Jesus ?^^ And that, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 253 

after the disciples had seen it represented for more 
than three years, yet when Chriot spoke to them 
of his rising from the dead, they knew nothing 
at all about it 1 They had never heard of this 
" figment," that tells of the " liquid grave,^^ and 
the " watery tomh^'' as it is quite a modern inven^ 
tion. 

The sign must agree with the thing signified — 
the sign was water baptism^ the thing signified the 
baptism of the Spirit : God gave the latter by 

" POURING OUT," " SHEDDING FORTH," &€., 

therefore the sign was given by pouring the wa- 
ter upon the subject ! " / baptize you with 
water ; he shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost." 

From my view of the baptism of the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost, I beg leave to 
refer the reader to the former argument. / say 
a^ain. as I said at first, there is a total absence 
of all evidence that they received the rite hy im- 
mersion, Mr. B's remarks about my conceding , 
any thing on that point are perfectly gratuitous ; 
for, although I admitted that there was water 
enough in Jerusalem, yet I said the public and 
private bathing places were in the keeping of 
Christ's enemies ; so that Mr. B.'s thanks for 
my liberality are entirely out of place. 

On page 79 he introduces the case of the 
jailer, and makes a very pathetic exclamation 
indeed : " O ! Mr. S., when shall I be delivered 
from the mortification ?" &;c. He says, '' I 
could wish, for the sake of the profession to 
which you belong, that this were a solitary 



254 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

case." I cannot help this gentleman's mortifi- 
cation. If he will persist in attempts to abuse 
the minds of his readers, I shall feel it my duty 
to hold up his conduct in its proper colours^ that 
it may meet its merited reprobation. He says, 
" I quoted the very language of the Scriptures," 
&c. So he did. But he did not quote enough 
of the language to give the true view of the case. 
Nor has he now quoted enough. In the Ser- 
mon he quoted from the 29th verse ; in the Let- 
ters from the 25th verse. If he had commenced 
at the 23d verse, as I have shown in the Ap- 
peal, the reader would have been saved the dan- 
ger of being imposed upon by his capitals in 
his Sermon, and the italics in his Letters. He 
proposes to let St. Luke's words inform the read- 
er in the premises, and says, "This is Luke's 
account of the matter, without even the addition 
of capital letters, and it seems to me to require 
no little ingenuity to find in all this any thing 
inconsistent with the idea of immersion. Let 
us see : The jailer first brought them out^ Now, 
why did not the gentleman accord a little com- 
mon sense to his readers, and leave them to 
judge from Luke's account^ without the aid of 
his italics^ instead of going on to repeat certain 
of Luke's words, putting them in italics ? 

I say, in conclusion, that his version of this 
matter makes Paul and Silas a couple of arch 
hypocrites ; for it represents that they left the 
prison at midnight, and went off to the " river 
Strymon," or some other stream ; and yet, when 
the next morning arrived, and the magistrates 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 255 

sent two " sergeants, saying, Let these men go," 
they refused to leave the jail, stating that "'they 
would not he thrust out privately," and added, 
" Let the magistrates come themselves and fetch 
us outr And " the magistrates came and he- 
sought them, and brought them out," &;c. And 
these are the men v^ho left the prison at mid- 
night -privately^ of their own accord^ who, now 
that it is day, need to be entreated to leave it 
before they will consent to go out ! This, truly, 
was rather a had lesson to teach their new con- 
verts ! But, candid reader, Paul and Silas were 
not the men to practise duplicity. Therefore^ 
I say they never left the premises of the Philip- 
pian jail until the morning, and the baptizing 
took place within doors, and not at the " river 
Strymon." I refer the reader to my former ar- 
gument on this case for a full answer to Mr. B. 
He begins his nineteenth letter by saying, 
"How determined must that man be Uo sup- 
port a theory,' who can undertake, by mere 
* sifting,' to set aside the plain testimony for 
immersion which is furnished in the eunuch's 
case," &c. I always consider that " sifting'^ 
in controversy is better than " shifting." That 
this gentleman has dealt largely in the latter, I 
presume the reader has discovered during this 
examination. " What is the chaff to the wheat ? 
saith the Lord," and how is the wheat of truth 
to be sepvarated from the chaff of error without 
" sifting .?" As it regards his strong or plain tes- 
timony for immersion in the case of the eunuch's 
baptism, it remains to be shown. My former 



266 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, JLND 

aTgument on this case he has not met, as the 
reader can see by comparing the Appeal, pages 
143-147, with his Letters, pages 81, 82, 83. 

On page 86, ^Ir. B. gives us quite a short 
method for disposing of the matter in contro- 
versy. He says, "Now, sir, I will tell you 
what our * favourite argument' is — it is this, the 
word of our King, throughout, is in favour of 
immersion. This is mi/ • favourite argument.' 
I find immersion in the pattern : and I find no- 
tliing else there." This is begging the question 
with a witness. Does the reader see ant^ or- 
gument in hi^ *' favourite argument ?'^ 

Why did he not attempt to answer my re- 
marks upon the " supposed immersion^ of Christ 1 
Also my exposition of Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 
12 ? The view I took of their argument for 
immersion, drawn from antiquity, where the 
rite was performed (accordiag to the Baptist 
historian. Robinson) upon naked subjects, both 
male and female, he passes over lightly, as 
though he wished to keep it from the view of 
his readers. 

Being hard pressed by the case which I gave 
from Benedict's History of the Baptists, where 
Roger Williams received baptism by immersion 
from the hands of a hit/man, who never had been 
dipped himself, Mr. B., on page 88, has made a 
CONCESSION, that, upon reflection, seems to have 
alarmed the gentleman himself, judging from 
what he wrote immediatelv after. Here it is : 
^a GRANT. SIR. THAT, IF A MAX HAS 
NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE MAY IM- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 257 

MERSE OTHERS, and his neglect of 

HIS OWN DUTY MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR 
ASSISTING OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF 
THEIRS." Now, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL 
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THAT, ElDER BrOAD- 
DUS BEING JUDGE, ALL PEDOBAPTIST MINIS- 
TERS ARE QUALIFIED TO GIVE THE ORDINANCE 
BY IMMERSION ! ! 

So that if you prefer the Methodists, Pres- 
byterians, Episcopalians, or any others, to the 
Baptists^ you may receive valid baptism, by 
IMMERSION, at their hands ! But he was evi- 
dently alarmed at his own admission, as I shall 
show the reader. He says, on the same page, 
" But I have always thought it singular, that 
those who ridicule immersion, &;c., should, after 
all, consent to immerse those who cannot be 
convinced that sprinkling or pouring is ' the 
more excellent way.' " And asks me, " How, 

THEN, CAN YOU CONSENT TO IMMERSE ?" " HoW 

can you encourage people in their superstition /"' 
He then adds, ^' On the last page of your 'Ap- 
peal' you call immersion the ' child of supersti- 
tion.' " This is not as it is there written. I 
called it no such thing. Why has he wrested 
my words from their proper connection in this 
case ? He knew that I was speaking of bap- 
tism, performed upon naked subjects. But he 
must make the impression that I considered 
immersion superstitious ; and then adds, " Sure- 
ly, HEREAFTER YOU WILL NOT BE FOUND WIL- 
LING TO immerse; or if you SHOULD, CAN 
ANY CONSENT THAT YOU SHOULD IMMERSE 
17 



258 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

THEM, WHILE THEY KNOW THAT YOU CONSIDER 
IT A VIOLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD ? I 

TROW NOT." I said, candid reader, above, 
that the gentleman was alarmed at his own con- 
cession. He admits that / am qualified, but 
hopes nobody will consent that / shall immerse 
them. But who told Mr. B. that I co?isider {771- 
mersion a violation of the word of God ? Where 
is it written ? He says, " While they know'' I 
so consider it. Why did he not give the proof 
of this allegation ? For the best of all reasons : 
he could not. We prefer sprinkling or pouring 
in baptism ; but we would rather immerse per- 
sons who cannot be convinced of the validity of 
baptism after these methods, than they should 
go where there is "no confession of faith," and 
lohere scarcely any two, even of the ministers, agree 
in opinion. We think " unity offaith,^^ and " the 
bond of peace," more important to a religious 
denomination, than the particular forjn of an out- 
ward ceremony ! 

I have now reached Mr. B.'s last letter, ia 
which there are some things I intend briefly to 
notice. I have observed that he seems to be 
very much concerned about the existence of 
different denominations of Christians ; and says, 
"I think I am ready to do any thing I can safely 
do, to bring the scattered flock of Christ together." 
And very gravely asks, " Will you do the same ? 
Allow me to hope that you will." Perhaps the 
reader is ready to ask. What does Mr. B. wish 
you to give up for the sake of union ? Why, 
gentle reader, he only modestly asks, that we 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 259 

give up infant baptism, and that we cease to l)ap" 
tize adults hy pouring, or sprinkling, and adopt 
immersion. Or in other words, that we shall 
ALL BECOME BAPTISTS. Well, what does he 
propose to do for union ? Just nothing at all, 
but be a Baptist still ; for he does not exwn allude 
to any concession to be made on his part. A 
kind and liberal soul, truly! He makes a pro- 
position which contains really nullification and 
consolidation, in order to union. He would 
nullify both infant baptism and baptism by pour- 
i%g; and then consolidate the whole Pedo- 
baptist world into one great Baptist church, in 
order, as he says, *^ to bring the scattered flock 
of Christ together." 

It would be thought, from what he has said, 
that those who reject infant baptism, and give 
the ordinance by immersion, are a very united 
people — for this, the reader perceives, is Mr. 
B.^s prescription for union. And so they are 
united, in two things, at least; first, to oppose 
infant baptism ; and, second, to contend for im- 
7nersion as the exclusive mode. Beyond this they 
have few sentiments m common. The history 
of the church will show, that among those who 
have rejected the baptism of infants, there has 
been found error of all dimensions — from Ter- 
tullian, who held it to be improper to baptize 
unmarried people, down to Peter De Bruis, who 
held that infants could not be saved, and there- 
fore ought not to be baptized — from the Ger- 
man Anabaptists, who held polygamy, and ran 
throu«[h the streets with a Bible in one hand 



260 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 

and a sword in the other, crying, " Repent and be 
baptized I" to the thousands of Europe and Ame- 
rica, who, in more modern times, have denied 
THE DIVINITY OF Christ, and held the error 
of Pelagius, &c. This gentleman will find it 
necessary to look out for some other mode of 
'* uniting the flock." 

We go against all pretended " unions^'* and 
think genuine Christian concord may be main- 
tained without consolidation. Let our Baptist 
brethren become more liberal toward other sects, 
and more united among themselves, and we shall 
have a better union of heart and sentiment than 
can be brought about by any such consolidation 
of discordant materials as is proposed by the 
plan of Mr. B. I would beg leave to suggest, 
that this gentleman would do well to give the 
world an example of the uniting effect , of their 
views of baptism, among themselves, before he 
concerns himself about trying his plan upon the 
Pedobaptist community. True charity always 
begins at home ! He alleges " that a very great 
number of our people do not have their infant 
offspring baptized," and infers therefrom " that 
it is not deemed a matter of great imiwrtance.^' 
" A very great number of our people !" Mark 
that. Where do they live ? I do not know them. 
Now, if he has stated the truth about the Metho- 
dists, it becomes them to see to it. And if they 
DO *' have their infant offspring baptized," they 
will recollect that this gentleman has misrepre- 
sented them publicly in saying that " a very 
great number of them" neglect this duty. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 261 

On page 88, Mr. B. says that " I consider 
immersion a violation of the woid of God ;" and 
on page 89, says that " I profess to have no ob- 
jection to immersion." Now what confidence, 
candid reader, can the public have in a contro- 
versialist who will thus, to carry his point, 
blow hot and cold almost in the same breath ? 

When he becomes alarmed lest some '' should 
consenf^ that /should dip them, he says, " While 
they know that you consider it a vioLATiaN 
OF THE WORD OF GoD." But whcn he wishes 
to bring about his union of " all sincere believers 
in one communion^^ he says, " You profess to 
have no objection to immersion — you believe 
IT Scriptural baptism." Does the intelli- 
gent reader suppose that the gentleman will be 
found ingenious enough to reconcile these con- 
jlicting statements ? And yet he says to me on 
the very next page, " I am not aware of misre- 
presenting your Adews in any instance whatever. 
If I could know that any observation, in all these 
letters, sets your views in an improper light, 1 
would sooner suppress the whole that I have 
written than to publish that observation." 

In conclusion, I remark, I have observed 
throughout his twenty-one " letters" a continual 
disposition manifested to mdk.e professions. He 
commenced by professing to have no object in 
view "but to maintain the purity of our Lord's 
institutions," page 4, and concludes with the 
profession which I have given above. Did he 
expect to impose upon his readers by confessing 
his convictio7is about the ordinance, 'dwA professing 



262 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, ETC. 

his innocence in the matter of misrepresentation? 
&c. This plan may succeed with such as 
have committed their understanding and judg- 
ment to the keeping of a priest, contented that 
he shall think, and reason, and judge for them. 
But I flatter myself, that amidst the light of the 
nineteenth century, the intelligent and candid of 
all denominations will need something.more than 
sophistry for argument, or assumption for proofs 
upon so solemn a subject as the true nature of a 
Christian sacrament. 

This gentleman has, more than once, in his 
Letters, intimated a hope that he might convince 
me of the correctness of his views, inviting me 
to examine the Scriptures and his arguments, as 
though he wished his readers to suppose I had 
never examined the subject, and that by being 
catechised as a school boy I might be led to 
adopt his views of baptism. This is one of the 
stratagems by which he seeks to convince, not 
me, but OTHERS. I wish the reader to under- 
stand that, for the last fifteen years, more or less, 
I have been engaged in examining and " sift- 
ing,^^ by the Scriptures, the subject of water bap- 
tism, and have been led to adopt the conclusions 
stated in the course of this and the former ar- 
gument. These views I commend to the can- 
did and careful examination of the intelligent 
reader, in the fear of God, and in view of 

THE RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTIONS OF THE LAST 
DAY. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



rr^sf 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 665 127 6 ' 4I 



